Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we begin today’s proceedings, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for their kind messages following the death of my father. I gained so much from him: a love of cricket, of rugby league and of animals, but most of all, an abiding sense of the importance of public service. He was a giant of the Labour and trade union movement and a great parliamentarian. I know he will be greatly missed by his former colleagues in this House and in other places, but most of all by family and friends. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I now turn to the election of the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) informing me of his resignation as Chair of that Committee. I therefore declare the Chair vacant.
Nominations for the election of a successor are now open, and will close at 12 noon on Tuesday 7 May. Nomination forms are available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Only Members of the Conservative party may be candidates in this election. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 8 May. A briefing note with more information about the election will be made available from the Vote Office.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Home Department

The Secretary of State was asked—

Net Migration

Miriam Cates: What recent progress his Department has made on reducing net migration.

James Cleverly: I put on record my condolences for your loss, Mr Speaker.
The Government have implemented a number of measures to reduce net migration. Those include restricting overseas students from bringing family dependants to the UK while they study, stopping overseas care workers from bringing family dependants, increasing the salary threshold for skilled worker visas—ultimately to £38,700—and increasing the minimum income requirements for family visas. We recognise that levels of migration have been too high and, upon my appointment, I immediately took action to bring those figures down.

Miriam Cates: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but one of the main drivers of immigration over the past 20 years or so has been labour shortages caused by falling birth rates. According to projections by Philip Pilkington and Paul Morland, if birth rates do not increase, immigration will have to rise to over a third of the population over the next 50 years if we are going to maintain a sufficient working-age population. Immigration on this scale has no democratic consent and obviously my right hon. Friend has promised repeatedly to reduce net migration, so what discussions has he had with colleagues in the Treasury about this issue? Does he agree that the Government must have a strategy to address falling birth rates, to ensure that we do not always have to rely on ever-increasing rates of immigration?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Birth rates are driven by myriad social and economic factors, which I have to concede are beyond my control, but I have spoken with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about related issues and recognise that GDP per capita is an important metric, as is overall GDP. We are ensuring that we invest in a British workforce: my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is passionate about apprenticeships and lifelong learning. We want to be a high-skilled, high-income economy, rather than a low-skilled, mass-migration economy. That remains the Government’s priority, and we are taking action through our immigration policy to reflect that desire.

Andrew Slaughter: Trhas Teklehaimanot Tesfay is one of the elite female cyclists chosen to lead RideLondon next month. She is also an asylum seeker, living in a hotel in my constituency where the food is so bad it makes her sick and unable to compete. Last month, an investigation by Sustain found food for asylum seekers that was undercooked, past its sell-by date and infested with insects, which in some cases left them malnourished and hospitalised. Could the Secretary  of State investigate this scandal and the responsibility of the contractor Clearsprings, so that asylum seekers  such as Trhas are not subject to such dangerous and degrading conditions?

James Cleverly: Mr Speaker, I can assure you, the hon. Gentleman and the House that our contractors are expected to maintain standards and, where they fall below those standards, they will be held to account. I will absolutely take note of the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Kelly Tolhurst: I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has taken to tackle the levels of legal migration, but could he inform me what assessment he has made of the expected impact of the new immigration salary list and what impact that will have on the net migration figure?

James Cleverly: My hon. Friend is at the frontline of our fight against illegal migration, but legal migration is important. We have recognised that, for a number of reasons, the figures have been too high in the most recent couple of years and I have listed measures we have taken. The combined impact of that is that, by our estimations, under the new regime that I have put in place, 300,000 people who would previously have been eligible will no longer be eligible. That is the order of magnitude of change that we will eventually see once these proposals are fully implemented.

Tim Farron: The refusal to allow care workers from overseas to bring a spouse with them comes at the same time as, in Cumbria, we are finding it impossible to fill at least a fifth of all the social care jobs. Would the Home Secretary explain to constituents of mine who are unable to find people to care for them and their loved ones why it seems sensible to make the lives of people from overseas so miserable in coming over here to care for our loved ones that they do not come at all?

James Cleverly: I recognise that, in rural communities, recruitment and retention of staff is difficult and in the hon. Member’s constituency—a wonderful, beautiful, but very rural constituency—there are particular pressures. I can assure him that the global supply of potential care workers is very significant. Actually, the issues about where in the country those people work are more about the internal dynamic within the UK economy than the quantum of people around the world who would seek to work in the UK. There are plenty of people who would wish to work here, recognising that they are not allowed to bring their dependants with them, but the issue of where in the country those people work is actually a broader issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: The cruel Conservative hikes to the visa minimum income threshold have caused deep distress—deep, deep distress—to many. Does the Home Secretary understand the pain that these changes have caused, and what message does he believe it sends out to those who would do us the honour of making their home in these islands that he puts such a high price on love and family life?

James Cleverly: It is absolutely right that any nation in the world puts conditionality on the people it accepts within its own borders. This country has a long-standing tradition—in fact, I am a product of this, as are the Prime Minister, the Business and Trade Secretary and many others in the Government—of being open and welcoming. However, when we see the orders of magnitude of legal migration that we have seen over the last couple of years, it is incumbent on us to take action. We have made it clear what action we will take, and we have given notice of the changes so that people can make their plans accordingly. When there are special cases, there is a special cases exemption, so that we can both control immigration and do our moral duty to protect those people who seek our protection, and be an attractive place for people to come and work.

Safer Streets Fund

Kim Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of funding allocated to the safer streets fund.

Laura Farris: Since 2020, we have supported 413 projects through our safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund, investing over £150 million, including £3.9 million that has been designated to Merseyside. The objective of the fund is to improve public protection—particularly that of women, particularly at night—and independent evaluation shows that it is more than achieving its objective.

Kim Johnson: I do not think the Minister answered the question about the impact of the reduction. Merseyside has now received a combined reduction of £180,000 to our safer streets fund in round 5. Our police and crime commissioner, Emily Spurrell, has called this “ill-considered and short-sighted” because projects have already begun and delivery is under way, but the funding has been restricted yet again. So will the Minister agree today to  reinstate the lost funding, so that Merseyside police and others can continue their great work, keeping our streets safe?

Laura Farris: May I just gently tell the hon. Lady that, in the last round of funding, round 4, Merseyside received £1.3 million through the safer streets fund— that was quadruple what it had received in round 3—and over half a million of that was designated specifically to CCTV and street lighting in Liverpool city centre? Round 5 should be seen in the context of record funding to the Merseyside police, who received an unprecedented uplift of £27.6 million—a 6.5% uplift. I am confident that Merseyside will still be able to deliver its schemes, including the safe home cards providing safe transport to help women get home from nightspots, in this round.

Vicky Ford: In Essex, the police, fire and crime commissioner Roger Hirst has used the safer streets money to pay for CCTV and safety measures in the Bunny Walks, to pay for safety improvements around Chelmsford Prison to keep residents safe, and more recently for CCTV cameras in Central Park and the Avenues and extra safety measures around the cathedral. Despite all this the local Lib Dems want to take credit for all of Roger’s work, so will the Home Secretary pop down to Chelmsford to come and see me and Roger and make sure we say thank you to Roger for all he has done with this Government money to keep people safe?

Laura Farris: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. She is correct. Roger Hirst has an exceptional track record as a police and crime commissioner. He has done outstanding work driving down antisocial behaviour and domestic burglary and the examples she gives are exactly what the safer streets fund is for: bespoke, local, dedicated services that will improve public protection. I know that Essex police have higher numbers than at any point in their 185-year history, and I will certainly urge the Home Secretary to pay them a visit at the next available opportunity.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Davies-Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and on behalf of the whole shadow Home Affairs team may I place on record our sincere condolences on the loss of your father?
Following the horrific killing of Kulsuma Akter in Bradford, who was tragically stabbed to death in broad daylight while pushing her three-year-old son in a pram, West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester police have referred themselves for investigation because of prior contact with Kulsuma and her husband, who has since been arrested for her murder. Cases of multiple contact with the police before violent escalation are all too common. Labour will mandate domestic abuse and wider violence against women and girls training for every police officer in the country and we will introduce Raneem’s law to overhaul the policing response when reports are first made. So I ask the Minister, how many more women will have to die before the Government can do the same?

Laura Farris: The hon. Lady is right to mention the case of Kulsuma Akter. What happened to her was appalling. I obviously cannot comment on any specifics  in relation to the case, but the hon. Lady will know that the bail conditions that the perpetrator had been released under contained restrictions that were breached themselves. So it was not a case of the court refusing to apply conditions; he breached them. In relation to her wider point, of course every single one of these cases is a tragedy. She will know, because we have worked on a cross-party basis in the past, how much time and attention we dedicate to this at the Home Office, but I simply say this. We now have domestic abuse training that has been rolled out to over 80% of forces and the Home Secretary and I are working very closely with the nine outstanding ones. They are on a timetable for delivery—I want to reassure the hon. Lady of that—and we now, this month, have trained rape specialists in every single police force in England and Wales.

Security Threat from China

Tim Loughton: What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the level of the security threat from China.

Thomas Tugendhat: I thank my hon. Friend enormously for raising this question. Let me be clear that the hostile activity we have seen from Chinese authorities and state-affiliated groups poses a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the British people and to our partners and allies across the world. The Deputy Prime Minister came to this Chamber last month to speak about the pattern of malign activity, including the targeting of our parliamentarians and two malicious cyber-campaigns by Chinese state-affiliated actors. We must never be afraid to stand up for ourselves and to call out this kind of activity that has targeted both my hon. Friend and me.

Tim Loughton: Mr Speaker, may I add my personal condolences to you on the loss of your father?
I say to my right hon. Friend that we had the scandal of the hacking of MPs’ email accounts back in March and we subsequently learnt that the FBI informed our Government—as well as foreign Governments who had legislators who were affected—about these incidents two years ago. Why has it taken two years for us to be told about a serious security breach? Will he now, with his colleagues in Cabinet, make sure that China is absolutely treated and labelled as a threat, not just an “epoque-defining systemic challenge”, and everything is done urgently to put China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend, who has given this House and our country exceptional service over many years, and who will sadly be standing down at the next election, has again made some strong points. On the first, he knows the language that I use and he has heard the words I have said. The reality is that we face threats from around the world, and many of them sadly are emerging out of Beijing today. We know it, we have seen it, and many of us in this House feel it. It is not something we are shying away from. The reality, however, is that there are many different ways of answering it. He has raised an important aspect on FIRS, which of course is being looked at, but he will have heard the  words of the Deputy Prime Minister in this Chamber only a few weeks ago and how clearly he made himself heard.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, but I am not convinced by the Government’s attitude on this. When the Deputy Prime Minister came to see us a few weeks ago, he did not say anything new; he announced things about events that happened two years ago. The Security Minister himself knows of attempts by the Chinese Government to undermine the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House. Why are we only ever told about things that happened years ago? If we are to take these issues seriously, we surely have to have an up-to-date and present account of the activities of the Chinese state.

Thomas Tugendhat: The hon. Member will well know that, when there is a reason to act quickly and draw something to the attention of the House, we do, as was the case with Christine Lee, which he will remember involved the payment of money to a certain Member of this House. The reason we took that action was because we needed to expose it fast.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Dan Jarvis: The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner said last year that our policing and security services were technologically vulnerable because of their use of Chinese-made equipment, including CCTV, drones and body cameras. Can the Minister say whether the digital asbestos of Chinese-made technology is still used in our policing and security infrastructure—yes or no?

Thomas Tugendhat: My friend the hon. Member will know well that the work of Fraser Sampson before he retired or ended his mandate last year has been fantastically important to many of us in making sure “digital asbestos” —I approve of the term—is got out of our institutions. This is something that is ongoing. It has got out of the most secure sites already, but there are other areas where there is work to do, because an awful lot of sites bought technology that would now be problematic. It is not just static sites; there is potential that some electric vehicles could be easily turned into mobile intelligence-gathering platforms by hostile states, so it is about looking not simply at the past, but at the future.

Returning Illegal Migrants to their Home Country

Henry Smith: What recent progress his Department has made on returning illegal migrants to their home country.

Michael Tomlinson: In 2023, we delivered a strong removal performance, with overall returns back to pre-covid levels. In total, 26,000 were returned, an increase of 74%, at an average of 500 removed every week last year.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Can he update the House on how his Department is prioritising the return of foreign national offenders to their home countries to keep the streets and communities of the United Kingdom safe?

Michael Tomlinson: May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the work that goes on in his constituency? As he knows, I visited Gatwick recently and saw for myself the good work of the Border Force team there. He will be pleased to know that removals of foreign national offenders were up last year by 27%. We are committed to the removal of foreign criminals and those with no right to be in the United Kingdom.

Jessica Morden: On that point, I sadly see many asylum seekers in Newport who are stuck in limbo due to this Government’s incompetence. However, can I draw the Minister’s attention to the case of a man in Newport who lied about his name and country of origin and is a convicted sex offender who has breached the terms of his licence? The courts want him returned home. He wants to return home and will even pay for his flight, but for some unfathomable reason, the Home Office seem incapable of authorising or allowing that. It has been three years—why?

Michael Tomlinson: The removals increased last year. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members, including the leader of the Labour party, have campaigned to ensure they are preventing the deportation of foreign criminals. Those on the Government Benches are determined to see foreign criminals removed, and there was an increase in removals of 74% last year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: Under successive Conservative Governments since 2010, returns of failed asylum seekers have collapsed by 44%, and returns of foreign national offenders have fallen by almost 30% over the same period. For all the Government’s tough talk, only 2% of those arriving on small boats since 2018 have been returned anywhere, yet Ministers are still resisting Labour’s plan for a new returns and enforcement unit to ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. Meanwhile, over the weekend, more people crossed the channel in small boats than will be covered in the entire first year of the Government’s failing Rwanda scheme. Will the Minister stop the headline-chasing gimmicks and instead commit to setting out his plan for the 99% of people currently stuck in the asylum system who will never be sent to Rwanda?

Michael Tomlinson: The fact of the matter is that nearly 18,000 foreign national offenders were returned between January 2019 and December 2023. The fact of the matter is that Opposition Members, including the leader of the Labour party, have campaigned to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals, while Government Members welcome an increase of 74%, with an average of 500 people being removed every single week.

Neighbourhood Policing

Andrew Western: What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of neighbourhood policing levels.

Virginia Crosbie: What steps he has taken to increase police visibility in local communities.

Paul Howell: What steps he has taken to increase police visibility in local communities.

Debbie Abrahams: What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of neighbourhood policing levels.

Mary Glindon: What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of neighbourhood policing levels.

James Morris: What steps he has taken to increase police visibility in local communities.

Chris Philp: I am happy to remind the House that last year we reached record numbers of police officers—in excess of 149,000, which was over 3,000 more than at the previous peak under the last Labour Government. In terms of local policing, we achieved 67,785 as of March last year.

Andrew Western: Under this Government, 10,000 neighbourhood police officers have disappeared since 2015 and have yet to be replaced on the frontline. Given the Government’s proclivity for lifting Labour’s policies, may I gently encourage the Minister to adopt Labour’s plan to recruit 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, allowing for a named, contactable officer in every ward in the country?

Chris Philp: The hon. Member is using figures that went up to 2019. Of course, the reason he is using figures that are five years out of date is that the numbers have gone up since then. If we take neighbourhood policing as a whole, we see an increase of 6,000, from 61,083 in 2015—the year he mentioned—to 67,785. I am surprised that he is not joining me in welcoming that.

Virginia Crosbie: Antisocial behaviour has been a big problem in Holyhead. Almost £700,000 of UK Government safer streets funding has been used for CCTV, improved lighting, self-defence training for local women and girls, delivering crime prevention packs and outreach work. Will the Minister join me in thanking Chief Inspector Robert Rands, PC Lisa Thomas and many others who work so hard to improve the lives of people who live and work in Holyhead?

Chris Philp: I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking those officers as well as countless thousands of others around the country who do such good work. On ASB, in addition to the safer streets money that she mentioned, from the beginning of this month we have an extra £66 million of funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling. Every single one of England and Wales’s police forces will get that, and that will make an enormous difference in combating the scourge of ASB.

Paul Howell: Does the Minister agree that getting extra officers out in our communities should be top of the list for any police and crime commissioner? Unfortunately, in Durham, we see that the Labour PCC is more interested in increasing her back-office staff and overseeing a decline in standards, with the latest police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy report showing two areas requiring improvement for the first time ever  in Durham. Does he agree that the sooner we get an ex-beat cop in place, such as the Conservative candidate, Rob Potts, the sooner Durham will return to being an outstanding police force?

Chris Philp: I completely agree. Spending money on things such as flowerbeds and diversity staff instead of frontline police officers is the wrong priority. Former frontline officers such as Rob Potts, running for PCC in Durham, will do a good job of getting priorities straight.

Debbie Abrahams: Kulsuma Akter from Oldham was murdered by her estranged husband on a busy Bradford street in the middle of the day, in front of their baby son. Research has repeatedly shown that regular foot patrols—especially in crime hotspots—lead to reduced offending and increased public confidence, particularly if combined with community-based prevention. Greater Manchester police and West Yorkshire police want to learn lessons from this tragic murder. What lessons has the Home Secretary learned about reducing neighbourhood policing and the prevalence of such appalling crimes?

Chris Philp: That is a tragic case, and we will study any findings by the Independent Office for Police Conduct very carefully. The hon. Lady mentioned hotspot patrolling; I mentioned in a previous answer that the Government are providing £66 million this financial year on top of the regular police funding settlement to fund hotspot patrolling, which may help in such situations. To repeat a previous point, local policing numbers have gone up by about 6,500 since 2015. Selectively quoting figures that are five years old does nothing to help public debate.

James Morris: Halesowen police station is under threat of closure thanks to decisions taken by the Labour west midlands police and crime commissioner. Tom Byrne, the Conservative candidate for PCC, says that he will stop that closure programme. Does the Minister agree with me and Tom Byrne that keeping Halesowen police station open is critical for community confidence and for the effectiveness of neighbourhood policing?

Chris Philp: I agree very strongly. The Labour PCC’s police station closure plans in the west midlands are shocking. This year, West Midlands police is getting an extra £50 million—a 6.8% increase and well above the rate of inflation. Tom Byrne would do an excellent job of making sure that that maintains frontline services, which is exactly how that money should be spent.

Mary Glindon: Northumbria police force has lost 11,000 officers and £148 million from its budget since 2010. Even after the uplift it will remain 427 officers short compared with 2010 levels. Will the Minister support the call from Northumbria’s PCC Kim McGuinness for further investigation into police resources as, clearly, not all areas of the country have benefited equally from the uplift programme?

Chris Philp: I am pleased to tell the House that for this financial year, which started just a couple of weeks ago, Northumbria force’s funding has gone up by £28 million —a 7.6% increase and more than double the rate of inflation. The resources are there, but using those resources  wisely is a matter for police and crime commissioners. Conservative police and crime commissioners tend to spend those resources most wisely.

Violence against Shop Workers

Ruth Cadbury: What steps his Department is taking to help tackle violence against shop workers.

James Cleverly: Violence and abuse towards shop workers is not and will never be acceptable. Last October the police published a retail crime action plan, which the Government have embraced and enhanced. Last week we launched the fighting retail crime action plan, which includes a commitment to create a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, as the sector has been calling for.

Ruth Cadbury: Last week I met a shopkeeper in Hounslow who has been repeatedly targeted by shoplifters. The family who own the shop cannot afford security guards or to lose a large amount of stock, unlike the big chains. It is welcome that the Government have finally backed Labour’s 10-year campaign, along with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other campaigners, to introduce a stand-alone offence of assault against a shop worker, but will the Minister go further and scrap the unfair £200 minimum, which leaves offenders getting away with impunity?

James Cleverly: Shoplifting is still a criminal offence, irrespective of the financial value of what is taken. We have made a clear commitment to ensuring that shopkeepers are protected and that the retail environment is safe. That is why we have put in place funding to put more police officers on the street and why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) just mentioned, neighbourhood policing numbers are up. We have committed the police to pursuing all reasonable lines of inquiry, and I am proud that we have put in place a specific criminal offence of assault against a retail worker.

Theresa Villiers: For our high streets to thrive, people need to perceive them as safe places to be, but there is real concern that the Mayor of London is failing to get the Met to take retail crime seriously enough. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a new Mayor for London, Susan Hall, to ensure we have more effective policing on our high streets?

James Cleverly: Quite frankly, the Mayor of London has been a massive disappointment when it comes to the policing of London. The Met is the only police force in the country to see its police numbers reduce. It has failed to meet its recruitment targets. Quite frankly, Londoners deserve better.

Steve McCabe: As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime, I welcome the announcements, as I am sure will shop workers everywhere. When will the announcements  be operationalised, and what is the monitoring process, so that we can all judge whether they are not just words but action?

James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are putting the changes through as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. The sooner it makes its passage through the House, the quicker we can put these specific changes in place, but we are not waiting for that. We have had conversations with police forces to ensure there is visible policing on our high streets and that they respond to every reasonable line of inquiry, sending a signal to retailers and potential criminals that we take this issue incredibly seriously, and that the police will respond to this important type of crime.

Matt Vickers: I realise the Home Secretary may be sick of hearing from me about assaults on retail workers, but I welcome the huge and comprehensive package announced last week to support them. Will my right hon. Friend implement the measures as quickly as possible to benefit retail workers across Stockton South and the rest of the country?

James Cleverly: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned vigorously on this issue and met me on a number of occasions to go through the specifics of the proposals, working closely with the Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), to ensure that both the policing response and the criminal response send a very clear deterrent to those who may be tempted to assault retail workers. It is not acceptable and we will take action.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Feryal Clark: In January, the Government voted down our latest attempt to introduce a stand-alone offence tackling violence against retail workers, continuing a pattern of years of failing to address this issue while such violence reached epidemic proportions. Last week—surprise, surprise—they U-turned and an offence is now to follow. When will the Government follow that up by stealing the other ideas they keep denying: a restoration of neighbourhood policing, which was down between 2015 and 2023—not the response officers they have been talking about, but proper neighbourhood policing; and getting rid of the £200 limit?

James Cleverly: Members should recognise that just because a clause might have a similar sounding name, it does not mean it is the same. The simple truth of the matter is that the Opposition clause was deficient in many ways. The clause that we will put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill will address the issue. On local policing, the hon. Lady should recognise that there has been a 6,000 uplift.

Antisocial Behaviour

Justin Madders: What steps his Department is taking to help tackle antisocial behaviour.

James Cleverly: Last year, we launched the antisocial behaviour action plan, backed by £160 million-worth of  funding and over 100,000 hours of police and other uniformed patrols undertaken to target antisocial behaviour hotspots, extended to every single police force in England and Wales. We banned nitrous oxide, increased fines for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti, and are strengthening powers to tackle antisocial behaviour through the Criminal Justice Bill that is making its way through the House.

Justin Madders: One of the aspects of antisocial behaviour that really annoys my constituents is persistent cannabis smoking by people in their own homes, particularly, but not exclusively, in blocks of flats. When I raise the matter with the police, they tell me that they are not going to go into people’s homes and deal with it. I do not think that that is good enough; does the Home Secretary?

James Cleverly: The police should take action when there is credible reporting of criminal behaviour. I have had this conversation with police leaders from areas around the country, and it is a conversation that we will continue to have with the police. People need not only to be safe but to feel safe, in their communities and in their homes.

Michael Ellis: My condolences to you, Mr Speaker.
Protesters who recently created an obnoxious stunt outside the home of the Leader of the Opposition belong in jail, as do the trust fund vandals who caused tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of damage outside the Ministry of Defence last week. The truth is that frontline politicians of any political hue, and our military personnel, are prepared to put themselves forward to serve and protect this country, which is, of course, a concept that the vandals would know nothing about. When it comes to this type of antisocial behaviour, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing visibility at high-profile locations such as those that I have mentioned?

James Cleverly: My right hon. and learned Friend has raised a couple of points. First, it is completely unacceptable to try to intimidate parliamentarians whatever their political hue, and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them regardless of their political party in defending their right to do and say what they believe to be in the best interests of their countries and their communities without fear of intimidation. That is an absolute red line, and it will be enforced. Secondly, these petulant acts of vandalism in the name of protest are unacceptable. When criminal damage occurs, it will be pursued, and in the Criminal Justice Bill we are taking specific actions to remove the veneer of a defence that criminal behaviour is somehow justified because people are not getting their way at the ballot box.

Lilian Greenwood: Too many residents in Nottingham South tell me that antisocial behaviour is making their lives a misery. They never see a bobby walking the streets, and under the lawbreaking Tory police and crime commissioner, Nottinghamshire police has been placed in special measures, with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services saying that the force is letting victims down. My constituents tell me that they will be voting for Labour’s Gary Godden on 2 May, in order to  rebuild neighbourhood policing and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour. They are right, are they not?

James Cleverly: They would be very wrong if they voted Labour expecting that that would increase a policing presence. Across the country we have seen over and over again that the best-performing police areas are typically controlled by Conservative police and crime commissioners. I know the situation in Nottinghamshire very well, and I have spoken directly to its police and crime commissioner, who has a clear plan of action to ensure that she continues to put police officers on the frontline. Labour-run police forces in the area have been sadly lacking in that regard.

Jonathan Gullis: Following an increase in antisocial behaviour in Tunstall, I was proud to work with more than 500 local residents to gain support for new CCTV, new alley gates and better street lighting through the safer streets fund. However, when I met the Labour leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, she told me that there would be no money for Tunstall—and, to make matters worse, she has dumped some undesirables in the Sneyd Arms hotel in the town centre, which has led to further criminal activity that is blighting high street stores throughout our community. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that, thank God, Ben Adams, Staffordshire’s police, fire and crime commissioner, was listening and ensured that we received that safer streets funding so that those in our communities would feel safer, and that people should vote for Ben on 2 May?

James Cleverly: I could hardly have put it better myself. I recently visited the wonderful town of Stoke and saw the passion of its people. This is a classic example of local leadership in the hands of the Labour party failing people, and local leadership in the hands of Conservatives defending them.

Visa Scheme for Palestinian Refugees

Patrick Grady: If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a visa scheme for Palestinian refugees.

Tom Pursglove: We are all concerned about the plight of those living in Gaza. Currently, we are not considering establishing a separate route for Palestinians. In any humanitarian situation, the UK must consider its resettlement approach in the round, rather than on a crisis-by-crisis basis.

Patrick Grady: It is not surprising that the upper tribunal found the decision to require biometric data for people from Gaza to be “irrational and unreasonable”, because most of us find that to apply to most decisions made by the Home Office. Is it not also irrational and unreasonable for the United Kingdom to offer humanitarian visas to people caught up in the conflicts in Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan, but not to offer such visas to people fleeing the conflict in Gaza?

Tom Pursglove: I will not give a running commentary on ongoing litigation, but I can say that we are supporting British nationals with dependants in Gaza to get those individuals out of Gaza safely, working in collaboration  with Foreign Office colleagues. There are also marked differences at play here. Of course, the right of return is fundamental as part of efforts towards a two-state solution, and other factors are at play in responding to the Ukrainian situation. The dynamic is very different, which directly affects the relationship we have with the Ukrainian Government, particularly in respect of the ability to carry out checks on individuals.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: Gaza Families Reunited’s petition for a Palestinian family visa scheme has garnered 100,000 signatures, and I hope it will soon be debated in Parliament. Gazans are stuck in a cruel and irrational Catch-22 situation: they cannot cross the border to Egypt because they do not have visas, as they cannot get their biometrics registered, but they cannot get their biometrics registered because they cannot get to a visa application centre in Egypt. The Government have the power to waive the requirement for biometrics to be registered, and it is in the Minister’s hands to do so. Why won’t he?

Tom Pursglove: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the security of the system is imperative. We must act in accordance with the requirements, which we put front and centre. I will not comment on ongoing litigation, but I can say that we will continue to work with Foreign Office colleagues in the way that we have described. Elements of the peace process are at play in relation to these issues, but we will keep our response to this crisis under review as matters develop.

Asylum Seekers Accommodated in Hotels

Desmond Swayne: What progress he has made on reducing the number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels.

David Evennett: What progress his Department has made on closing asylum hotels.

Tom Pursglove: The Home Office has been clear that the use of hotels is a temporary and short-term measure to ensure that we meet our statutory obligation to accommodate destitute asylum seekers. We have made significant progress in closing over 100 asylum hotels as of the end of March. Our actions mean that there are over 20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels today compared with six months ago.

Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister’s ambition extend to closing all the hotels?

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government’s ambition is to close the hotels. We closed 100 by the end of March, and we are working towards closing 150 by May. Fundamentally, the objective is to alter the way in which people are accommodated and to introduce more cost-effective and appropriate approaches, but also to reduce the flow of people coming into this country illegally, which is the very best way of alleviating the pressures.

David Evennett: I welcome all the efforts that my hon. Friend is making to deal with and speed up the asylum process. However, will he outline what measures he considers when deciding which hotels to close in each tranche?

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend will recognise that value for money is a critical consideration that informs hotel closure decisions, as are operational deliverability and the notice periods on contracts. It is also about recognising the needs in particular locations and the challenges that these sites present. We have a plan, we are closing hotels, and we will continue to deliver on precisely what we promised.

Toby Perkins: For almost two years, the Sandpiper Hotel in Chesterfield has been used as a hotel for asylum seekers. The North Derbyshire Refugee Support Group has told me that not a single person who has stayed there has been asked to go back to their country. In fact, the vast majority of them have had their applications approved, which undermines the Government’s suggestion that all these asylum seekers are not entitled to be here. Actually, the Government approve the vast majority of applications, so their approach is a waste of money. Why do the Government continue to fail in this way? For the Minister to celebrate the extraordinary usage of hotels just because it is diminishing slightly is hopeless. When will we get the Sandpiper back in public use?

Tom Pursglove: I thought it was interesting that a Labour insider said to The Times last week:
“We need a viable answer to what we’d do differently other than just ‘smash the gangs’”
and that
“we can’t currently say how we are going to tackle the demand side of the issue.”
They are absolutely right. I suspect we will be waiting a very long time for the answer. That goes right to the heart of the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. He says that we ought to be closing the hotels, but it is only this Government that have a credible plan to do just that.

Jim Shannon: Mr Speaker, may I pass on the condolences of myself and my party on the death of your father? We know you loved your father, and we know that your father loved you.
When it comes to reducing the number of asylum seekers, I want to suggest one option to the Minister that we could certainly do in Strangford. For those people who are in hotels, there are companies in my constituency that wish to employ them and to give them accommodation at the same time. If we want to help the asylum seekers in the hotels in my constituency, and in the consistency adjoining mine, then let them get the jobs and let them get the accommodation.

Tom Pursglove: While I am always very willing to engage with the hon. Gentleman, he will appreciate that the difficulty that we have in respect of that approach is the pull factor that it would present—it would potentially encourage people to make dangerous journeys via small boats to get to the UK. We do not want to do anything that plays into the business model of the evil criminal gangs responsible for that miserable trade. What we  want to do is put them out of business. On the wider accommodation point, I am very happy to engage with the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Clarke: In 2016, Middlesbrough had the highest ratio of asylum seekers per head of population of anywhere in England. I welcome the closure of hotels, but I worry about reports in today’s Daily Mail that the Home Office is buying up large amounts of property in some of the poorer areas of England, which risks taking us back to the situation we saw in 2016. Will the Minister reassure me that that is not the case, because my constituents are clear that that places an unacceptable strain on the community, and indeed an unhappy strain on community cohesion?

Tom Pursglove: My right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the work the Government are doing to get a better grip on the flow of people coming across to our country, who inevitably need accommodating while they are here. We have a mixture of accommodation to meet those needs, and getting the numbers down is critical to be able to reduce that dependence. I am able to say, however, that we are not actively pursuing procurement in the three local authorities cited in the article that my right hon. Friend references—and that includes Middlesbrough.

Mike Amesbury: My sincere condolences, Mr Speaker.
The Government promised some considerable time ago that a hotel used in my constituency would no longer be used to house those seeking asylum. That is not the case; it has almost become de facto permanent. Could the Minister speak to me—not necessarily on the Floor of the House, but separately—and give me an assurance that there will be a managed closure of that facility?

Tom Pursglove: What I cannot do on the Floor of the House is make commitments about specific hotels, but I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this. What he could do to help me with this particular challenge is to get behind the work that the Government are doing to reduce the flow of people coming to the UK, which fundamentally and crucially would help us to be able to close hotels such as the one in his constituency.

Topical Questions

John Whittingdale: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

James Cleverly: We have increased the volume of asylum cases processed. We successfully met a ministerial commitment to close over 50 asylum-seeker hotels by January 2024, and we had closed over 100 by the end of March.
Last year, I brought forward measures to make legal migration fairer and to radically reduce the numbers; 300,000 people who came to the UK last year would not now be eligible to do so. Anyone who wants to bring a family from abroad must be able comfortably to support them financially.
In the Budget, the Government put forward £75 million to roll out violence reduction units and hotspot policing across England and Wales, and £230 million for technology that will save the police time and money and make sure that police officers are on the frontline doing the job that they were recruited to do.

John Whittingdale: May I add my condolences, Mr Speaker?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that police numbers in Essex are at record levels and that overall crime is down. However, there has been a rise in vehicle thefts. Will he therefore welcome the efforts of our excellent police, fire and crime commissioner, Roger Hirst, in establishing a stolen vehicle intelligence unit that has so far recovered £14 million-worth of vehicles? Will he look at what further support can be given to Roger Hirst to tackle this crime?

James Cleverly: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the fantastic work of Roger Hirst and the stolen vehicle intelligence unit. A number of large-scale seizures have been made against attempted vehicle exports. The Government have reduced vehicle-related crime by 39% since 2010, and we seek to go further through the Criminal Justice Bill. We want to see more innovative approaches like the one taken by Roger Hirst, which is why I am very proud to campaign alongside him. He has done fantastic work to protect the people of Essex.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: Mr Speaker, I remember the kindness that your father showed me and our long discussions on rugby league. I add my condolences.
The Hillsborough tragedy was 35 years ago to the hour. We remember the 97 who were lost and support the families’ campaign for a Hillsborough law.
We strongly condemn Iran’s attack on Israel this weekend, and we must do everything we can to prevent further escalation in the middle east, but there are also domestic security issues in relation to Iran. The Iran International journalist Pouria Zeraati was attacked on the streets of London a few weeks ago following repeated Iran-related security threats on British soil, including threats to kidnap and kill. Does the Home Secretary believe it is now time to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the UK?

James Cleverly: The right hon. Lady will know that we keep our response to Iran under constant review, and of course we have done so in the light of the attack in Wimbledon. We do not speculate about future designations or sanctions, but she will know that the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety and a number of its members are sanctioned as individuals. As she knows, we will keep this under constant review.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary will know that we have raised this many times. I understand the complexity of the issue. The proscribing legislation was drawn up more than 20 years ago to address terrorist threats such as al-Qaeda, rather than state-sponsored threats that have both domestic and international security objectives. Our bottom line must be keeping this country safe, which is why Labour has proposed new security legislation to allow the Government to put appropriately targeted  proscription-style restrictions on the operations of state-linked organisations such as the IRGC. The Government previously resisted this, but will he look at it again in the light of recent events and work with us on any legislation that is needed to keep this country safe?

James Cleverly: We have the National Security Act 2023 and a range of tools at our disposal. Defence against state threats is one of the Department’s priorities, and my right hon. Friend the Security Minister leads on its practical implementation. I can reassure the shadow Home Secretary and the House that we constantly review the range of options at our disposal and deploy those that are most appropriate. Protecting the UK and the people living and working here against state threats will always be a priority of this Government.

Philip Hollobone: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire support the excellent initiative of a number of Conservative police and crime commissioners to include filling in potholes as part of the community payback initiative for convicted offenders? Will he apply pressure on the Ministry of Justice to get this up and running as soon as possible?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend raises an excellent idea that has my enthusiastic support. I will do exactly as he asks straightaway.

Sarah Dyke: I offer you my condolences, Mr Speaker.
The former chief inspector of borders and immigration recently produced a report stating that 275 certificates of sponsorship were granted to a company that used forged documents and purported to be a real care home. Such Home Office failures clearly leave people at risk of exploitation and modern slavery, so what steps is the Minister taking to make the system more robust and to protect vulnerable people who come here to work in our care system?

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. We responded within the eight-week deadline to that ICIBI report and accepted the recommendations made to us in it. We are working through them, but work was already in train, particularly in collaboration with the Care Quality Commission, on better accreditation practices for care providers when we are matching people to those visas.

Pauline Latham: Outdated laws are allowing child sexual predators and offenders to enter or leave our country while in possession of illegal material on their digital devices because Border Force does not have the power to access them. Will my right hon. Friend work with his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to consider the merits of  a new offence of wilful obstruction, under which an individual could be prosecuted if they fail to unlock their devices to allow them to be properly searched?

Laura Farris: I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. The issues that she raises are of direct importance to intelligence gathering  and child protection. My officials have been working closely with Border Force to ensure that its powers keep pace with the digital age. When the next legislative opportunity arises, if not before, we will carefully consider giving Border Force powers to compel individuals to submit to searches of their devices, if they are suspected of holding child sexual abuse material.

Toby Perkins: The murder of Gracie Spinks in Chesterfield sent shockwaves through the town, and the report on Derbyshire police’s handling of this desperately unhappy situation was salutary. There is still far too much inconsistency in how stalking and violence against women are handled, so will the Home Secretary back Labour’s plan to bring in mandatory national standards, and mandatory training on tackling violence against women, so that we see consistency in policing on stalking right across the country?

James Cleverly: I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, under my leadership, the Home Office and policing across the UK will maintain its focus on preventing violence against women and girls. We have a roll-out of police guidance and training when it comes to women and girls. I will listen carefully to the proposals he has put forward, because we want to make sure that women and girls feel safe in this country.

Lisa Cameron: This Government champion fantastic animal welfare standards. My constituents would like to see alternatives to animal testing wherever possible, and would be keen to hear a vital update from the Department.

Thomas Tugendhat: Given that interest is about to switch in this House to a different matter, I will be brief. I promise to write to my hon. Friend on this, but she should know that this Government have already doubled spending on finding alternatives to animal testing. We will continue to make sure that the inspection regime is as strict as possible, to make sure that when animals need to be used, the conditions are as humane as possible.

Justin Madders: Will the Home Secretary tell us what level of auditing there will be of the hundreds of millions of pounds being sent to Rwanda? In particular, will he guarantee that no UK taxpayers’ cash will, either directly or indirectly, be used to fund the M23 militia in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

James Cleverly: All our overseas expenditure, whether it is through official development assistance or through contractual relationships, such as the ones with Rwanda, is always robustly policed to ensure that it is spent exclusively on the issues that it is designed to address. We have a strong, good working relationship with the Government of Rwanda, who are absolutely committed to being the exporter of solutions to global problems, rather than the exporter of problems.

Andrew Rosindell: The people of Romford are angry that they are not getting the police cover from the Mayor of London that we pay for. We are seeing a crime wave across Romford, including in Gidea Park, and we have seen a stabbing in the town  centre. We have had enough. Will the Minister please ensure reform, so that Essex towns such as Romford get the service that Roger Hirst gives to the people of the historic county?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the contrast between the excellent work done by Roger Hirst in Essex and the appalling job being done by Sadiq Khan in London. Sadiq Khan is the only one of the 43 police and crime commissioners to have missed his recruitment target and, tragically, police officer numbers are falling in London, in contrast to the rest of the country. Londoners will have a chance to cast their vote on 2 May, and I hope that they kick him out.

James Murray: My constituent Maysara is a British citizen, and his parents live in Gaza. His parents successfully applied for  visas to visit him in the autumn last year, but they were unable to travel after 7 October, and their visas expired. I contacted the Home Office on Maysara’s behalf to ask if those visas could be extended, but I was told that his parents would have to make new applications. However, there are no functioning visa application centres in Gaza, so will the Minister explain what exactly my constituent’s parents should do?

James Cleverly: I am more than happy to look at the details of the case. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that the circumstances on the ground changed dramatically after Hamas’ brutal mass murder rampage on 7 October, and our security posture in the region has had to be enhanced. I am not making any implications about his constituent’s family, but he and the House will understand that we must be careful in everything we do when it comes to accepting people who are leaving Gaza in these circumstances.

Iran-Israel Update

Rishi Sunak: Mr Speaker, before I start, I would like to express my deepest sympathy, and I am sure that of the whole House, on the death of your father. He was a true giant of not just this House, but the other place, too.
I also want to express my solidarity with our Australian friends after the horrific and senseless attacks in Sydney in recent days. Our thoughts are with all those affected.
On Saturday evening, Iran sought to plunge the middle east into a new crisis. It launched a barrage of missiles and attack drones over Iraq and Jordan, and towards Israel. The scale of the attack, and the fact that it was targeted directly at Israel, are without precedent. It was a reckless and dangerous escalation. If it had succeeded, the fallout for regional security and the toll on Israeli citizens would have been catastrophic, but it did not succeed.
In support of Israel’s own defensive action, the United Kingdom joined a US-led international effort, along with France and partners in the region, that intercepted almost all of the missiles, saving lives in Israel and its neighbours. We sent additional RAF Typhoons to the region as part of our existing operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria, and I can confirm that our forces destroyed a number of Iranian drones. We also provided important intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support for our partners. Our pilots put themselves in harm’s way to protect the innocent and preserve peace and stability. I spoke to the RAF earlier today; they are the best of the best, and I know that the whole House will join me in expressing our gratitude.
With this attack, Iran has once again shown its true colours. It is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard—on further destabilising the middle east. Our aim is to support stability and security because that is right for the region, and because although the middle east is thousands of miles away, it has a direct effect on our security and prosperity at home, so we are working urgently with our allies to de-escalate the situation and prevent further bloodshed. We want to see calmer heads prevail, and we are directing all our diplomatic efforts to that end.
Yesterday I spoke to my fellow G7 leaders. We are united in our condemnation of this attack. We discussed further potential diplomatic measures, which we will be working together to co-ordinate in the coming days. I will also shortly speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu to express our solidarity with Israel in the face of this attack, and to discuss how we can prevent further escalation. All sides must show restraint.
Our actions reflect our wider strategy in the middle east, which I have set out in the House previously. I believe there are three vital steps to put the region on to a better path. First, we must uphold regional security against hostile actors, including in the Red sea, and we must ensure Israel’s security. That is non-negotiable and a fundamental condition for peace in the region. In the face of the threats that we saw this weekend, Israel has our full support.
Secondly, we must invest more deeply in the two-state solution. That is what we have been doing over the past six months, including working closely with the Palestinian  Authority, so that when the time comes, they can provide more effective governance for Gaza and the west bank. It is significant that other regional partners actually helped to prevent a much worse attack over the weekend. It reminds us how important the attempts to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours really are, and they hold out precious hope for the region.
Thirdly, the conflict in Gaza must end. Hamas, who are backed by Iran, started this war. They wanted not just to kill and murder, but to destabilise the whole region. This weekend, they rejected the latest hostage deal, which offered a road to a ceasefire. It is Israel’s right, and indeed its duty, to defeat the threat from Hamas terrorists and defend its security. I want to be clear: nothing that has happened over the past 48 hours affects our position on Gaza. The appalling toll on civilians continues to grow—the hunger, the desperation and the loss of life on an awful scale. The whole country wants to see an end to the bloodshed, and to see more humanitarian support going in. The recent increase in aid flows is positive, but it is still not enough. We need to see new crossings open for longer to get in vital supplies.
I want to take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to pay tribute to the three British aid workers who were killed in Gaza: John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson. They were heroes. The children of Gaza whom they were risking their lives to feed need a humanitarian pause immediately, leading to a long-term sustainable ceasefire. That is the fastest way to get hostages out and aid in, and to stop the fighting. Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to live in peace, dignity and security, and so do people across the entire region.
In conclusion, Saturday’s attack was the act not of a people, but of a despotic regime, and it is emblematic of the dangers that we face today. The links between such regimes are growing. Tel Aviv was not the only target of Iranian drones on Saturday; Putin was also launching them at Kyiv and Kharkiv. And who was the sole voice speaking up for Iran yesterday, seeking to justify its actions? Russia.
The threats to stability are growing, not just in the middle east but everywhere, and we are meeting those threats, time after time, with British forces at the forefront. It is why our pilots were in action this weekend. It is why they have been policing the skies above Iraq and Syria for a decade. It is why our sailors are defending freedom of navigation in the Red sea against the reckless attacks of the Iran-backed Houthi militia. It is why our soldiers are on the ground in Kosovo, Estonia, Poland and elsewhere, and it is why we have led the way in backing Ukraine, and we will continue to back it for as long as it takes. When adversaries such as Russia or Iran threaten peace and prosperity, we will always stand in their way, ready to defend our values and our interests, shoulder to shoulder with our friends and our allies. I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement, and for the regular briefings on the developing situation in the middle east. I also thank him for his warm tribute to your father, Mr Speaker. Doug Hoyle  was a great servant of our party, respected by all who knew him. I also join the Prime Minister in offering our solidarity with the victims of the horrific attack in Sydney, and in recognising the heroism of the three British aid workers killed in Gaza while working for World Central Kitchen.
Turning to the events of this weekend, we support the defensive action taken by the UK, alongside our international allies, against the Iranian attacks on Israel, and we welcome the Prime Minister’s call for restraint. Once again, we all salute the professionalism and bravery of our armed forces. We also support the RAF planes being sent to the region to bolster Operation Shader. Their efforts are vital for a safer world.
There can be no doubt that the attack perpetrated by Iranian forces this weekend has left the world a more dangerous place. It targeted innocent civilians, with a clear intent to destabilise the region. It must be wholly condemned by all, but let us also be clear that a full-scale conflict in the middle east is in no one’s interest. It is a path that can only lead to more bloodshed, more instability and the unleashing of forces that are beyond the ability of anyone to control.
The combined defensive action this weekend was a success and, because of that, lives were saved. As a result, escalation is not inevitable. In repelling the attack, Israel showed strength and courage. It must now show the same strength and courage to de-escalate. That has to be the primary objective, and that is the responsibility of all sides and every partner. We must be resolute and united in our support for the collective security of Israel, Jordan and other partners in the region.
But tensions remain very high. We must proceed calmly, carefully and with restraint, because if diplomacy takes centre stage—and it must—we also need to be clear that diplomatic premises should not be targeted and attacked. That is a point of principle, but as the condemnation from our G7 allies rightly notes, Iran’s response this weekend was unprecedented—a further step towards the destabilisation of the region and the risk of escalation. Nobody in this House should be, or is, under any illusion: this is a regime that sponsors terror across the middle east and beyond, that murders and represses its own people and supports Putin’s war efforts in Ukraine. So can the Prime Minister update the House on any new steps he is taking with our international partners to pursue sanctions against the regime, and can he clarify what steps he is taking to limit the power of the revolutionary guard to glorify terrorism here in the UK?
While there is no justification for Iran’s actions, we cannot be naive to the fact that one of the drivers of tension in the region is the ongoing war in Gaza. Six months on from the horrific Hamas terror attack, hostages remain separated from their families, thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed, and now more than a million people face the imminent threat of famine—so I urge the Government again to use every ounce of diplomatic leverage that we have to make sure that aid to Gaza is unimpeded and drastically scaled up. Alongside that, we reiterate our call for an immediate ceasefire, for Hamas to release hostages and for a return to a diplomatic process that can rekindle the hope of a two-state solution.
It is right that we condemn Iran’s action, it is right that we work with others to defend the security of our allies, and it is right that we seek the end of conflict in Gaza. But this is a moment for restraint, because escalation will only lead to further destruction; and, for the sake of all those still caught in the horror and violence, that must be avoided.

Rishi Sunak: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support of the Government’s actions. With regard to what might happen going forward, ultimately, Israel has a right to self-defence, as any state does. The G7 leaders spoke yesterday and unequivocally condemned Iran’s attack, and expressed full solidarity and support for Israel and its people. But as the Foreign Secretary said this morning, this is a time to be
“smart as well as tough”.
Israel has incredibly successfully repelled the Iranian attack, and Iran is even more isolated on the world stage. As others have said, we urge Israel to take the win at this point. We want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed—the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that would be deeply destabilising for the region and would risk more lives—and all our diplomatic efforts at this point will be geared towards that goal, in partnership with our allies.
As I have said previously, the behaviour of the Iranian regime, including the actions of IRGC, poses a significant threat to the safety and security of the UK and our allies. Yesterday at the G7, we agreed to work together on further measures to counter the Iranian regime and its proxies. It was agreed that we should co-ordinate those actions, and that work is now under way. Obviously, at the appropriate time, I or Ministers will update the House. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, we have already sanctioned over 400 Iranian individuals, including the IRGC in its entirety. We put in place at the end of last year a new sanctions regime that gives us more extensive powers to designate sanctions, and of course, the National Security Act 2023 created new offences for espionage and foreign interference, and means that our security services have the powers that they need to deter, disrupt and detect threats of a more modern nature from states such as Iran.
Lastly, with regard to diplomacy for Israel and the region, we are absolutely committed to a two-state solution. We have been working very hard and using all our efforts to bring that about, particularly over the past few months, by building up the capability of the Palestinian Authority, as I have said, so that they have the necessary technical and administrative capability when the moment comes for them to provide effective governance in the west bank and Gaza. It is absolutely my view, and that of the Government, that Israelis and Palestinians should have the opportunity to live side by side in peace, with security, dignity and opportunity, and I am proud of the role that the United Kingdom is playing.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: My condolences, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father.
This remains a dangerous moment, yet over the weekend we saw a demonstration of unity and purpose. We saw the depth of will for normalisation and for a secure  future for all peoples of the middle east. Restraint is vital if we want to build on the momentum to get hostages home to their families and to get improvements to continuing aid, but to better protect our people, will my right hon. Friend commit to launching with our allies a new consensus on Iran and a new effort—with combined diplomatic, military and wider expert areas—to limit the extent of the atrocities of Iran? We need to end the compartmentalisation of threats when we deal with Iran; we must deal with it as one, whether on its nuclear ambitious, the arming of the militia, femicide or transnational repression. Only with a new consensus will we see that progress, so will he please commit to leading that internationally?

Rishi Sunak: I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. That was exactly the subject of our discussions among the G7 leaders yesterday. She mentions nuclear. Iran’s nuclear programme has never been more advanced than it is today; it threatens international peace and security. There is absolutely no justification, at a civilian level, for the enrichment that we are seeing and which the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported in Iran. I want to reassure her that we are considering next steps on the nuclear file with our international partners, and we are committed to using all diplomatic tools available to ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Mhairi Black: I echo the Prime Minister in passing on our thoughts not only to you, Mr Speaker, but to the families of the aid workers who have been killed in Gaza.
I condemn the acts of violence by the Iranian regime. They are no more than a cynical attempt to exploit the suffering, pain and turmoil being experienced by people in Palestine right now. While we rightly condemn the violent acts of Iran, so too must we condemn the violent acts of Israel. From listening to the interviews that he has been giving, the Foreign Secretary is correct in his attempt to uphold the principle of proportionality, but if firing 100 missiles in retaliation for an isolated attack on an embassy is—correctly—considered disproportionate, so too must be Israel’s 192-day bombardment of Gaza.
We know that the agenda in Tehran is to bring about as much instability as possible. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that does not happen. There is not going to be a military solution to the conflict in the middle east. There must be a political and diplomatic solution, so what is required now is the same as what was required six months ago: we need de-escalation, and for the causes of conflict in the region to be reviewed. The biggest continuing cause of conflict is the siege of Gaza; hence the need for a ceasefire. Can the Prime Minister outline what he is doing to ensure that the ceasefire mandated by the UN Security Council becomes a reality?

Rishi Sunak: First, it is important not to try to draw any equivalence between Israel’s absolute right—indeed, duty—to provide security for its citizens in the face of an appalling terrorist atrocity and what happened over the weekend. Those things are not remotely the same.  More broadly, though, as I have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, we urge Israel to abide by international humanitarian law. We have been very clear that too many civilians have been killed, and we are deeply concerned about the impact on the civilian population in Gaza; our diplomatic efforts are geared towards alleviating that suffering. I will continue to raise those points with Prime Minister Netanyahu when I speak to him, but, as I have said, drawing an equivalence between those two things is absolutely not the right thing to do.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Jeremy Quin: Notwithstanding the sheer scale of the Iranian attack, multi-layered air defence proved effective. Are we ensuring that we are passing any learnings we have picked up on to Ukraine for the use of its own defence, and, in a more hostile and dangerous world, with the ever-increasing proliferation of missile and drone technology, are we reviewing our own air defence assets and capabilities to support our allies—and, indeed, closer to home—if ever required?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent question. He is right about the importance of air defence, which is why it has repeatedly been one of the key capabilities that we have sought to provide to Ukraine—that is something we have led on for some time. Ditto, some of the new contracts that we have placed to replenish UK stockpiles, most recently this year, also cover air defence missiles. More broadly, my right hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure our industrial production here in the UK is geared to produce the capabilities we need, whether for our own use or for Ukraine’s. I am pleased to say that the Defence Secretary is working with the industry to ensure that supply chain is there to meet those needs.

Edward Davey: Mr Speaker, I send you and your family our deepest condolences on the loss of your father, and associate myself and my colleagues with the comments of others about the appalling murders in Sydney and the death of the aid workers in Gaza.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The Liberal Democrats join him in condemning Iran’s attack on Israel: this is an alarming escalation in a conflict that has already seen far too many deaths and far too much suffering. We support the action taken by the RAF to intercept Iranian drones as we stand up for Israel’s security.
We also worry about what Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government will do next. The Prime Minister has rightly said that we must prevent further escalation, so does he agree that the best way to achieve that is to press all sides to agree to an immediate bilateral ceasefire in Gaza to get the hostages home, get the aid in, and put us on the path to a lasting peace for a two-state solution?

Rishi Sunak: We have repeatedly called for an immediate humanitarian pause so that we can get the hostages out and more aid in, and use that as the foundation to build a more lasting and sustainable ceasefire, but it is worth pointing out—this has not been mentioned by colleagues so far—that Hamas, yet again, have rejected another offer to release hostages. It is  important that we do not lose sight of that. We must have the hostages released as part of any of those conversations, and over the weekend it was Hamas who yet again rejected the latest round of those talks.

Liam Fox: I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown on this issue, and I echo his call for the need to avoid a spiral escalation. However, we have seen a military attack by Iran on a nation that its regime believes should not exist at all. Iran has directly or indirectly engineered a war in Gaza, with the aim of thwarting better relations between Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, and Israel. We now have death and destruction in Gaza in a conflict that no one can win, and where the only beneficiaries are Iran, its proxies and its allies. We have seen an Iranian journalist attacked on British soil, and we have seen an international vessel being pirated by the IRGC in international waters—another vile example of hostage taking. So I ask my right hon. Friend again: why is Iran Air still operating out of Heathrow, and why are Iranian banks still operating in the City of London? When will the snapback mechanism be invoked, and what can be done to stop the export of Iranian oil to Russia and other countries, which is now keeping the regime afloat?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership on this issue over a consistent period of time, and he is right to highlight the threats that Iran poses to us. I want to reassure him that, on all of the areas that he mentioned, active work has been undertaken by the Government. As I mentioned in my statement, we discussed yesterday on the G7 call the need for and benefit of co-ordinating further measures, perhaps including some of the things that he talked about, among allies in order to have maximum impact both on the regime and the ultimate designations of any future sanctions. I am pleased that our new sanctions regime, which we implemented at the end of last year, gives us extensive new powers. I am keen to make sure we use them to good effect, but where we can co-ordinate those with allies, I know he would agree with me that that would be preferable, and I can reassure him that that work is happening at pace.

George Howarth: Mr Speaker, could I too pass on my condolences for the loss of your dad, Doug? I was one of those who on many occasions benefited from his wise advice.
As the Prime Minister has said, there is no moral equivalence between the two sides in this—what is happening in Gaza and what happened in the attacks by Iran on Israel—but Israel has made mistakes in the past and should be held to account for them. Would the Prime Minister agree with me that, as things move on, the importance of neighbouring states—particularly, for example, Jordan—is going to be vital in resolving not just the current difficulties, but a long-term future that brings about a two-state solution?

Rishi Sunak: In a word, yes. I pay tribute to the King of Jordan for the leadership role that he has played over the past several months. We are fortunate to enjoy a strong working relationship with the Jordanians, which was on display yet again over this weekend, and I commend him and his country for what they have done.

Suella Braverman: Mr Speaker, please accept my condolences on the loss of your father.
Two weeks ago, I was in Israel at the northern border with Lebanon. Of course, we have all seen what happened this weekend, but since 7 October Iran-backed Hezbollah has fired over 4,000 rockets into northern Israel, displacing over 150,000 Israeli civilians. I met some of those families. They are under siege and they have been uprooted, but they are brave and defiant in the face of terrorism and antisemitism. We have known for years that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism, funding and promoting terrorist plots, radicalisation and hostage taking both in the middle east and at home. We have proscribed Hamas and we have proscribed Hezbollah. Prime Minister, why do we not put the UK’s national security first by now proscribing the IRGC?

Rishi Sunak: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we do not comment on any potential proscription decisions, but of course we recognise the threat from Iran and have taken measures to counter it at home and around the world. I obviously refer her to my previous answer, but I am confident that the police, security services and courts all have the tools they need to sanction, prosecute and mitigate the threats from Iran. We strengthened our sanctions regime recently, including sanctioning the IRGC in its entirety.

Rushanara Ali: Despite the calls for a ceasefire here in our Parliament and from across the international community, the war in Gaza has raged, costing 33,000 lives as well as the 1,200 killed by the Hamas attacks and a humanitarian catastrophe that is now turning into a famine. For months many have raised concern around the spectre of regional escalation; precisely what conversations is the Prime Minister having with leading figures in the Israeli Government, as well as through various parties to influence the Iranian regime to de-escalate as quickly as possible given the seriousness of the crisis?

Rishi Sunak: Both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to their counterparts over the weekend, and the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the Iranian Foreign Minister specifically to urge de-escalation and condemn what happened over the weekend. I will be speaking to Prime Minister Netanyahu shortly, and I can reassure the hon. Lady and all Members of the House that we will continue, together with our allies, to urge calm heads to prevail and de-escalation. That is the right course forward, and across all levels of Government that is the message we are taking to everyone.

Ben Wallace: There is another country that is under almost constant daily bombardment by Iranian-made drones: Ukraine. Some three years ago I pleaded with the Israelis to help Ukraine against Russia, and they refused even though Russia was spending half a billion dollars in the Iranian drone programme. I know the Prime Minister will be speaking to the Prime Minister of Israel later today; now that RAF pilots have quite rightly gone to the defence of Israel, could he perhaps ask that Israel now decides it is time to help Ukraine in its hour of need, and we can see off both Russia and Iranian aggression?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for the role he has played in ensuring the security of the UK and our allies over previous years. My statement  alluded to the fact that the Ukrainians were suffering from Iranian drones over the same weekend that this happened. Not only will I, as always, be taking up his points with all our allies in urging them to do more to support Ukraine, but I know he will have welcomed the recent announcement a few weeks ago of more support from the UK to Ukraine, specifically in the areas of uncrewed platforms on autonomous warfare to make sure the Ukrainians have the ability both to protect themselves and to conduct their operations. The majority of the 10,000 new platforms we are delivering to the Ukrainians have been developed in the UK, which my right hon. Friend was keen to ensure we saw the benefits of here at home. I am glad that has been realised, both supporting Ukraine and its security and bolstering the British defence industry here at home.

John Martin McDonnell: There is rightly consensus across the House to call for restraint from the Israeli Government, but we have called for restraint before: we called for restraint with regard to the attack on Gaza, yet the indiscriminate bombing took place; we called for restraint on the settlements in the west bank, yet the settlements have expanded; we called for restraint so that food could be got to the children of Gaza, yet malnutrition is killing some of them. So what action will the Government take if Israel does not show restraint, because we are in danger of the middle east being set alight by the decisions taken by the right-wing factions within the Netanyahu Cabinet?

Rishi Sunak: I am sorry, but I missed the part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question where he condemned Iran and Hamas for what they have done. We will always encourage de-escalation in the region, and I am proud of the role the UK is playing to bring that about.

Kit Malthouse: The Prime Minister was right to authorise the defence of Israel and the avoidance of violence and death, but violence has also erupted in the west bank over the last few days, as he will know. What concrete steps can we take to protect those civilians?

Rishi Sunak: I have personally repeatedly raised with Prime Minister Netanyahu the issue of settler violence in the west bank, as have my colleagues including the deputy Foreign Secretary. We have joined with allies in sanctioning the activity of particular individuals where it has been brought to our attention and we will continue to ensure that the Israeli Government do everything they can to reduce tension in the west bank. It is not conducive to long-term peace in the region, and that is why we have taken action where we can, as well as being explicit with the Israeli Government about our concerns.

George Galloway: Mr Speaker, I knew your father well for a very long time. He was a fine man, and I am sincerely sorry for your loss.
There was not one single word in the Prime Minister’s statement of condemnation of the Israeli destruction of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, which is the proximate reason for the event everyone is here in concert condemning. He was not even asked to do so by the Opposition  Front Bench. Kay Burley is the only person so far to demand that of a Government Minister. We have no treaty with Israel—at least not one that Parliament has been shown. The Iranians are not likely to listen to the Prime Minister when Britain occupied Iran, looted its wealth and overthrew its one democratic socialist Government in my lifetime.

Rishi Sunak: Whatever may have happened a few weeks ago, it is absolutely no justification for launching more than 300 drones and missiles from one sovereign state towards Israel—it is as simple as that. In the hon. Gentleman’s question, not once did he condemn that action or, indeed, the actions of Hamas in the region. There is no equivalence between these things whatever, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

Robert Halfon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his strong support for the state of Israel. Last year, as Israel and Saudi Arabia were about to strike a transformational agreement, Iran-backed Hamas carried out its massacre on 7 October with the aim of torpedoing the chance of peace between Israel and the Arab nations. Last Saturday’s drone attack by Iran being thwarted by Israel and her allies, including Jordan, demonstrates that our countries can work alongside Israel after this new period of contention. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a new opportunity for Israel and the Arab nations to rebuild relations in the aftermath of 7 October and bring the hostages home?

Rishi Sunak: I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is significant that other regional partners helped to prevent a much worse attack over the weekend. It reminds us how important the attempts are to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours. It holds out precious hope for the region. It is exactly that hope that Iran and its proxies are trying to snuff out, and we should work hard to combat that.

Dawn Butler: My condolences to you and your family, Mr Speaker.
Prime Minister, I condemn Iran and Hamas—let me start there—but we must not lose focus on the situation in Gaza, where there is a humanitarian crisis and famine. It is just destruction that people are seeing in front of their eyes. If we want to ensure that the hostages come home—like the hostage who has been adopted in Brent, Noa Argamani—we must argue for a ceasefire, not a pause. Will the Prime Minister clearly state that we should be calling for an immediate ceasefire on all sides?

Rishi Sunak: It is wrong to suggest in any way that we have lost sight of what is happening in Gaza. Indeed, the G7 statement yesterday specifically referenced our desire to co-operate to end the crisis in Gaza, to work towards an immediate humanitarian pause where hostages can be released, to get aid in, to build the conditions for a sustainable ceasefire and, crucially, to deliver more humanitarian assistance into the region. It is welcome that we have seen an increase in that flow over the past few days and weeks, but far more aid has to get in, and that is pressure that we will continue to put on all partners concerned.

Iain Duncan Smith: My condolences, Mr Speaker.
Can I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement? It is clear, as has been said already, that all roads lead back to Tehran when it comes to the terrible violence and wars that take place in the middle east. Every country—not just Israel, but other Arab countries—fear what Tehran is doing in their countries as well, which is something we forget. We know that Iran is committing murder at home and has executed thousands of protesters while this war on Hamas has taken place.
With all of that known, when my right hon. Friend sits down with our international colleagues and looks for other restrictions to place on Iran, will he please consider proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and doing so in a way that makes sure it can no longer foment extremism here in the United Kingdom as well?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As I said in my statement, we are urgently working with our allies to see what steps we can take together in a co-ordinated fashion to deter and condemn what Iran is doing. With regard to destabilising activity here in the UK, he will know that the Charity Commission recently opened an investigation into a particular organisation. We will continue to use all the powers at our disposal to ensure that people are not fomenting hate and undermining British values here at home from abroad.

Zarah Sultana: I have notified the office of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, that I would reference her in my question. It was recently revealed that she told a private fundraising event:
“The Foreign Office has received official legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law, but the Government has not announced it.”
I have a simple question for the Prime Minister. If he cannot answer it—if he dodges and deflects—our constituents will know that he is hiding the truth. Was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee telling the truth—yes or no?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to address that clearly. We have one of the most robust arms export licensing control regimes in the entire world. We have previously assessed that Israel is committed and capable of complying with international humanitarian law. But, as the hon. Member would expect, we regularly review our assessment. As the Foreign Secretary confirmed last week, the UK position on export licences is unchanged and, following the latest assessment, is in line with our legal advice. We will keep that position under review and act in accordance with advice. I also point out to the hon. Member that most like-minded countries have not suspended their existing arms export licences to Israel.

Matthew Hancock: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in this area. In addition to the thanks given to the RAF, which undertook exemplary action this weekend, will he also thank those US service personnel based here in the United Kingdom, including many in my West Suffolk constituency, who were prepared to act as a moment’s notice to defend Israel against this attack, which has been roundly condemned?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute not just to our colleagues in America but to our partners across the region, who participated in a joint international effort. That was all in support of Israel’s own actions; its armed forces also deserve enormous praise for the success with which they repelled this awful attack.

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, may I pass my condolences to you and your family for the sad loss of your father, Doug?
We live in deeply unsettling times, and the Prime Minister, along with our allies, is right to call for a de-escalation. When he has his discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu this afternoon, will he convey to him that now is the time to step back? There must be no further escalation in the middle east. Now is the time to recognise that both Israelis and Palestinians must live in peace, and for that we need the two-state solution. In 2014, when we had an outbreak of violence in Gaza, the then Prime Minister David Cameron unequivocally called for a ceasefire. We must today put an end to the conflict and the killing in that region for the benefit of both these countries.
Finally if I may say so, I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments on the situation in Ukraine, but we are all aware of the reports of a build-up of Russian activity. I say to the Prime Minister that we must do more today with our allies to protect our friends, and give them the tools they need to defend themselves and to ensure that Russia is defeated.

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to say to the right hon. Gentleman that we remain steadfast in our support for Ukraine. We will not allow Putin to achieve his aim of eradicating freedom and democracy in that country. We have announced significant support—it was the first trip I made at the beginning of this year—and have encouraged allies to do the same. We are committed to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, for Ukraine not only to win the war but to emerge as a strong sovereign and free country.

Rehman Chishti: My thoughts and condolences are with your family, Mr Speaker.
The United Kingdom stands for an international rules-based system, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations. That is one of our key objectives with regard to Ukraine. I condemn in the fullest Iran’s attack on Israel, and I have previously condemned Iran’s malign behaviour in the region. The question on people’s minds is this: what information or intelligence does the Prime Minister have about what went on in Iran’s consulate in Damascus that led to the attack? The international community and people around the world want to see the United Kingdom applying international law consistently across the board.

Rishi Sunak: Whatever happened in that situation has not been confirmed. Regardless, there can never be any justification for a sovereign country launching over 300 drones and missiles towards Israel. It was right that we took action with allies to repel that attack.

Richard Burgon: I send my condolences to you, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father, who will have been very proud of you.
This is a very dangerous moment. The UN Secretary-General rightly told the Security Council last night:
“Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate”.
Ordinary people in both Israel and Iran, and across the whole region and the wider world, will pay the price if this escalates. The Secretary-General also rightly reiterated the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, as the Security Council voted for, given the huge loss of life there. This is the first opportunity that we have had to question the Prime Minister since the recent killing of British nationals in Gaza. Is he planning to appoint an independent adviser to scrutinise the Israeli inquiry into those deaths of British nationals, similar to what Australia has done?

Rishi Sunak: I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after that incident to express our very strong concerns about what happened. We are carefully reviewing the initial findings of Israel’s investigations into the killing of the aid workers, and welcome the suspension of two officers as a first step. The findings must be published and followed up with an independent review to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his world-leading strength defending Israel and wider peace in the middle east. Saudi Arabia—this country’s friend—has now said in an official statement that Iran “engineered a war in Gaza” in order to destroy the progress that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was making in normalising relations with Israel. That very important statement from the Saudis yesterday also said that Iran is a country that sponsors terrorism and it should have been stopped a long time ago. Is my right hon. Friend as hopeful as I am that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel—both allies of this country—will normalise their relations as soon as possible, as it looked like they were on track to do before the pogrom of 7 October?

Rishi Sunak: I had a very constructive meeting in Saudi Arabia with MBS at the end of last year. I know how important it is to normalise relations between Israel and its neighbours. It is clear from this weekend and the comments that my right hon. and learned Friend just made that there is momentum and a desire to see that happen. I believe that holds out precious hope for the region.

Sammy Wilson: I pass on my party’s condolences to you, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your dad.
The UK should neither dictate to Israel nor demand restrictions on how it retaliates against the Iranian regime, which has shown that it is prepared to take action to back up its threats to wipe out Israel. The political and military support that we have given is very important. Can the Prime Minister tell us what direct action we can take here in the United Kingdom to disrupt Iran’s economic interests in our own country?

Rishi Sunak: We have already sanctioned more than 400 Iranian individuals and, as I have said, we are discussing with our allies what more we can do.

Jason McCartney: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Royal Air Force personnel who were on operations over the weekend. I also join him on the importance of de-escalating, calling for maximum restraint and, on Gaza, working towards that sustainable ceasefire. A flood of aid is going into Gaza to help the humanitarian efforts there. We all want to see an end to the bloodshed. I echo what the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), said—what we saw over the weekend shows the importance of investing in air defence systems to defend civilians from hostile regimes.

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether it is with Ukraine, where we have provided AMRAAM and Starstreak missiles, or here at home, where we placed new contracts at the beginning of this year to improve our air defence capability, it is a key capability that we need to invest in, and ideally we need to produce more of it here at home.

Afzal Khan: Twelve-year-old Zain Arouq miraculously survived Israel’s bombing that killed most of his family in Gaza three months ago, but he was killed this weekend by an aid airdrop when he was searching for scraps of food because the parachute did not open. Zain and thousands of others would still be alive had allies like the UK and the US pushed Israel to adhere to the UN resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza, which would allow aid to reach starving children safely. Will the Prime Minister set out exactly what repercussions Israel will face for failing to abide by the UN Security Council motion?

Rishi Sunak: I have been very clear that too many civilians have already lost their lives in Gaza. The UN Security Council resolution also called for the unconditional release of the hostages, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, Hamas rejected at the weekend. It is important that we focus on that, at the same time as getting more aid in.

Stephen Crabb: There is one thing right now that would do more than anything to help end the conflict in Gaza: the release of all the Israeli hostages being held by Hamas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter how well intentioned and no matter how much we all want the conflict to end as soon as possible, simply calling for an unconditional immediate ceasefire reduces the incentive on Hamas to do the hostage deal? So long as they feel that they are winning diplomatically, it reduces pressure on them to do the right thing.

Rishi Sunak: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I have made the same argument from the Dispatch Box previously. It is absolutely crucial that, as part of the immediate humanitarian pause that we are calling for, not only can we get considerably more aid into Gaza to alleviate the suffering that people are experiencing, but we must be able to release the hostages. That is what we are focused on doing.

Marsha de Cordova: While globally the attention is rightly focused on Israel and Iran, and we are all in agreement that the next step has to be de-escalation, the situation in Gaza is worsening every day. More than 33,000 lives have been lost and more than 1 million will now be facing imminent famine. The UK almost stands alone in not restoring funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Will the Prime Minister tell us when he will set out a clear path for funding to resume?

Rishi Sunak: Together with our allies, we are reviewing the interim findings and are discussing appropriate next steps. Many partner countries have suspended funding to UNRWA after what happened, which was shocking. In the meantime, we are considerably increasing our own aid into the region and welcome the commitments from Israel recently to increase the flow, opening new checkpoints at the port of Ashdod, the Jordan land corridor and Kerem Shalom, but we now want to see those commitments followed through. We all want to see more aid getting in and that will be a focus of our conversations with Israel.

Mark Logan: Mr Speaker, on behalf of myself and your neighbours in Bolton North East, I am very sorry for the loss of your father.
Some 90% of Iranian oil exports go to China. China is increasing in importance in the region. It already trades four times more than the United States with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, along with Iran. What discussions does the Prime Minister plan on having with his counterpart, Xi Jinping, and with Foreign Minister Wang Yi on resolving an escalation in the conflict in Iran?

Rishi Sunak: The Foreign Secretary recently spoke to his counterpart on exactly that topic. More broadly, we are discussing with our G7 partners and allies what further measures we can take to deal with the threat, economically, that Iran poses.

Naseem Shah: Much has been said by the Prime Minister and other Conservative Members about the normalisation process between Saudi Arabia and Israel. On 9 January, the Saudi ambassador to the United Kingdom told Radio 4 that that normalisation process was subject to a two-state solution and a fully recognised Palestine.
Having put that on the record, I remind the Prime Minister that support for any nation is not like the unconditional support that he has for his football team. When Iran acts like a rogue state in Syria, we rightly call it out and, when Israel taunts Iran by bombing its consulate building, knowing full well that Iran will respond and risking further escalation, we must call it out as well. What is the Prime Minister doing in his efforts to ensure that the two-state solution and the recognition of Palestine are being actively pursued?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the hon. Lady to my statement, in which I was clear about my commitment to a two-state solution and our diplomatic efforts to help to bring that about.

Jeremy Wright: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that it is right and lawful to defend yourself and right and lawful for  your allies to help to defend you, but does he agree that it is also important to point out that self-defence can be both effective and restrained, and furthermore that self-defence can be more effective in the long run when it is restrained, because it helps to retain the broadest coalition of those who support your position and because it enables you to retain the moral authority to act robustly against others when you need to do so?

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. and learned Friend has put it well. Ultimately, Israel does have a right to self-defence, as any state does. However, it has successfully repelled the Iranian attack and Iran is even more isolated on the world stage, which is why, as the Foreign Secretary said, we would urge it to take the win and avoid further escalation at this moment.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister is right to say that we and our allies need to be very clear-sighted about the activities of Iran and Russia. However, when we consider that British businesses such as Avon are still doing business in Russia, claiming that that is because it is vital and urgent; when we consider that a massive shadow fleet of tankers is evading Russian oil sanctions; when we consider that many countries such as Kazakhstan are importing so that they can then export those goods to Russia, again to avoid sanctions; and when we consider that not a penny from the sale of Abramovich’s Chelsea has yet gone to Ukraine and we have still not seized any of the multibillion pounds of Russian state assets sitting in British banks, should we not also consider whether we could go further?

Rishi Sunak: We and our G7 partners have repeatedly underscored the fact that Russia’s obligations under international law are clear and it must pay for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine. I believe that we should be bold and pursue all routes through which immobilised Russian sovereign assets can be used to support Ukraine, in line, of course, with international law, and I have discussed that repeatedly with my G7 partners. We have tasked Finance Ministers to that end, they are reporting back ahead of the G7 summit in June, and I hope that we can make further progress.

Simon Clarke: May I add my voice to those of Members on both sides of the House who have called for the proscription of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation? Its tentacles are wherever trouble is to be found across the middle east, and this is the latest demonstration of its malign influence.
Given that the threat of war is growing in a way that I think bears a grave risk to us here at home, does my right hon. Friend accept that we need to set out a timetable to fulfil our commitment to raise the proportion of GDP that we spend on defence to 2.5% as quickly as possible, but we also need specificity on how we will do so?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased to say that, just a couple of years ago, in anticipation of the rise in the threat environment, we increased defence spending by the largest amount since the end of the cold war, and we subsequently increased it by more than £11 billion specifically to deal with inflation, strengthen our nuclear enterprise and rebuild our stockpiles. However, I can  reassure the House and my right hon. Friend that we will always continue to invest in our armed forces to keep this country safe.

Joanna Cherry: I hold no candle for the Iranian regime. In fact, I recently co-authored a report on its disgraceful oppression of women and girls, which we concluded amounted to gender apartheid. However, just as Iran must be held to the standards of international law, so must Israel. The Prime Minister has paid tribute to the three brave British aid workers who were killed by the Israel Defence Forces. Will he condemn Israel for their wrongful killing, and will he also condemn it for the ongoing slaughter of innocent life in Gaza?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the hon. and learned Lady to my previous answers to both those questions.

Vicky Ford: Iranian drones have not only been fired towards Israel and Ukraine; there are also biweekly shipments of Iranian drones arriving in Port Sudan for use in the war in Sudan, which, as of today, has now raged for a full year. I am glad that the Prime Minister has made a statement today and will act for us on financial sanctions and other measures, but given that Iranian weapons are now being used in wars in the middle east, Europe and Africa, does he agree that partners not only in the west but in the global south should be deeply worried about how far the tentacles of terror from Tehran are now reaching?

Rishi Sunak: I agree with my right hon. Friend, which is why yesterday I discussed with G7 leaders the co-ordinated effort among allies to take further measures to stem the flow of Iran’s malign influence across the world. Hopefully, we can co-ordinate that action to tackle the precise thing that she has just mentioned.

Khalid Mahmood: I deplore the attack by the IDF on the consulate in Syria, and I totally deplore the massive attack by Iran, which launched 301 drones and missiles towards Israel. Iran knew full well that this attack would detract from the great work that we need to do in Gaza to support people who are starving and young children who are suffering from malnutrition. Will the Prime Minister commit to oppose escalation in the region by any of the countries involved? As he said in his statement, we need to concentrate on supporting young people and those who are dying in Gaza.

Rishi Sunak: As I said very clearly, we have urged de-escalation and calm heads to prevail, and we continue to do everything we can to get more aid into Gaza.

Mark Francois: On air defence, I wholly commend our RAF pilots and their superb Typhoon aircraft, but we have only 137 Typhoons. Because of budget pressures, the MOD plans to retire 30 of them next year and sell them off, which would now be akin to selling Spitfires before the battle of Britain. When the Prime Minister has a moment, will he go back to his office, place that ridiculous  decision under immediate review and, at the very least, put those Typhoons in a war reserve, in case one day we need them for ourselves?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He will know that individual equipment and capability decisions will be made by a service chief, in conjunction with Ministers. I am happy to look at the point he raised, but we are increasing our purchases of F-35 aircraft and collaborating with Japan and Italy on building the next generation of fighter aircraft—something in which we are leading the world. It will be fantastic for British jobs here at home.

Derek Twigg: I hope that, as the Prime Minister said, we can find a diplomatic solution, but we should plan for the worst. I note that the Prime Minister said in his statement:
“The threats to stability are growing—not just in the middle east, but everywhere.”
I may add that our armed forces are running very hot at the moment. Why did the Prime Minister not come here today to announce a significant uplift in defence spending to match the real and potential threats that we are now facing as a country? Is that not going to add to the insecurity for our country?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous answer about the existing increase in our defence budget—not just over the last few years, but especially this year—in recognition of the increasing threats. I point out to him that we have remained the second largest defence spender in NATO over the past 10 years, behind only the US.

Theresa Villiers: I welcome the action taken by the Prime Minister and the armed services over the weekend. I regret to say that some of my constituents feel that UK support for Israel has weakened in recent weeks. In the light of the horrific aggression from Iran, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to confirm that there is no backsliding and that the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with Israel as it exercises its right to defend itself from a genocidal attack?

Rishi Sunak: As I made crystal clear in my statement, we must ensure Israel’s security. It is a non-negotiable and fundamental condition for peace in the region. In the face of threats like we saw this weekend, Israel will always have our full support.

Caroline Lucas: Like the whole House, I condemn the attack on Israel by the tyrannical Iranian regime, just as I deeply condemn the atrocities of Hamas, but I am also incredibly concerned that our Prime Minister has now pitched the UK into a perilous war—and in support of an Israeli Government presided over by Netanyahu, a man who chose to bomb an Iranian embassy because he is dependent on his hard-right provocateurs. That was itself a dangerous escalation by Israel and a further breach of international law, so if the Prime Minister’s priority is indeed international law and de-escalation, why is he not calling now for an urgent bilateral ceasefire to get the hostages home and to get the region on the path to peace?

Rishi Sunak: We have called for an immediate humanitarian pause to get the hostages out and aid in, and we will continue to do so. I am completely comfortable that what we did over the weekend was the right thing, acting together with allies to make sure that we could act in defence of Israel in the face of an unprecedented attack on its territory and people.

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his holistic view of the situation in Israel, Gaza and, of course, Iran. May I say how glad I am that he has categorically said that we will carry on supplying the arms that Israel needs to defend itself, which have been proven to be so vital just this weekend? Does he agree that, in order to try to achieve a sustainable ceasefire, the middle east has to confront the threat that Iran makes? Its direct influence in Yemen is having an impact on shipping through the Red sea. It is having an impact on the war in Sudan. It is having an impact in the war in Gaza, and there is the effect on Israel and surrounding countries such as Lebanon. So I ask my right hon. Friend to do everything that he can to make sure that the whole of the region recognises that Iran plays a large part in all the suffering that we are seeing in the area.

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is right to point out Iran’s support for the Houthi militia, who have carried out a series of dangerous and destabilising attacks against shipping in the Red sea. That is why the UK, together with our allies, stood up to take action against that and are currently engaged in the multinational Operation Prosperity Guardian to further deter Houthi and Iranian aggression.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the support of the Prime Minister and the Government for the resolution on Gaza adopted recently by the United Nations Security Council. Israel is currently in breach of that resolution. How does that affect the Prime Minister’s view of the current actions of Israel in the middle east?

Rishi Sunak: That resolution also calls for the release of the hostages, which Hamas rejected just this weekend.

David Jones: Further to the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps not only is the principal sponsor of terrorism in the middle east, but is active on the streets of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Iranian journalist, Pouria Zeraati, who was almost fatally stabbed last month, was under threat from the IRGC. It is actually the case that IRGC officials can be seen dining out in restaurants in west London quite regularly. While I fully understand that my right hon. Friend will not flag up any such action in advance, can he confirm that he will take into account what I believe to be the overwhelming feeling in this House, which is that the IRGC should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation?

Rishi Sunak: I refer my right hon. Friend to my previous answers, and also remind him that the National Security Act 2023 creates new offences that give us the powers to arrest and detain people suspected of involvement in state threats on our soil.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I share the hope for calm and de-escalation. The UN Secretary-General has said that, without it, the middle east faces
“a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict”.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what the parameters are of UK military involvement in the region, and confirm that it will remain defensive?

Rishi Sunak: I am not going to speculate on hypotheticals. As I said, we have sent additional jets and air refuelling tankers to bolster our existing operation in the region. We will obviously keep next steps under review.

Nicola Richards: Iran has smuggled arms into the middle east, including the west bank. It has equipped, funded and trained Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, as well as threatened British-Iranians on British soil—and that does not even include what Iran has done to its own people, not least gassing Iranian schoolgirls. I thank the Prime Minister for the strong action over the weekend. Does he agree that we must now consider proscribing the IRGC as a terrorist organisation?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to highlight Iran’s influence, including its missile shipments on the surrounding seas, and I am pleased that the United Kingdom is playing its part in doing something about that. HMS Diamond is bolstering our maritime presence in the region as we speak, and the UK has previously interdicted the supply of Iranian missiles being smuggled to the Houthis and others, both last year and the year before. We will continue to be vigilant in the area.

Alistair Carmichael: I hope the Prime Minister has heard the very strong and broad consensus in this House on the need for stability and de-escalation. When he speaks to Prime Minister Netanyahu, will he make it clear to him that if Israel were now to proceed with its much-anticipated attack on Rafah, it would be not only a humanitarian catastrophe for the 1.5 million Palestinians who are sheltering there and make the release of the hostages more difficult, but make that stability and de-escalation more difficult to achieve and, as a consequence, would not have the support of this Government?

Rishi Sunak: We have repeatedly raised humanitarian concerns with the Israeli Government. Just the other week, the Foreign Secretary set out our views on the situation in Rafah.

John Whittingdale: It has been two weeks since the Iran International journalist was attacked on the streets of our capital. The journalists and families of those working for BBC Persian live under constant threat. The organisation responsible for those acts is the IRGC, working for the Iranian regime,  so will my right hon. Friend therefore look to see what further measures can be taken, including outlawing the IRGC?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend that, as we speak, we are in active dialogue with our international partners, following yesterday’s G7 call, to co-ordinate further diplomatic measures to contain the threat from Iran.

Seema Malhotra: The core issue now must be de-escalation, an immediate ceasefire on all sides to end the devastating situation in Gaza, and a political solution for the long term. UNRWA is arguably the single biggest multilateral tool to support a political solution, and it is unmatched in its administrative ability to deliver aid. The UK stands behind other countries in not renewing funding to UNRWA. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), will the Prime Minister set out a clear path for funding to resume?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer. I do not think it is right to say that we are behind other countries. We are in active dialogue with other countries on the approach to UNRWA. We recognise the operational and logistical role it plays on the ground while recognising the very shocking concerns that we all had about what happened previously. It is right that we take the time to get our future approach to UNRWA right.

Philip Dunne: I welcome the Prime Minister’s focus on calling for restraint and de-escalation, which I imagine will be on his agenda when he speaks to the Israeli Prime Minister this afternoon. I also welcome his highlighting of the greater threats to this country. Recognising all he has said today about the future defence budget, could he undertake an immediate review of the resources and resilience of the British armed forces in the immediate term?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that we keep these things under constant review to make sure that we have the capabilities we need to protect our country and to stand up for our values and interests around the world.
The conflict in Ukraine has shown how technology is changing warfare, which is why we our increased focus on autonomous vehicles and building our UK industrial supply chain is so welcome. We need to focus on these things, and I am delighted that the Defence Secretary has prioritised those areas.

Hywel Williams: Is there not a danger that a further military attack on Iran would serve to entrench the despotic regime in Tehran and strengthen its ability to oppress its own people—Iranian women, the Kurdish community, the Baha’is and many others?

Rishi Sunak: Iran’s treatment of its own citizens is appalling, and we have repeatedly condemned it and called Iran out for that.

Jane Hunt: Last week, I met students at Woodbrook Vale School and De Lisle College in Loughborough. Their question on this topic is even more important now than it was when they put it to me: what more can the UK do to help bring peace to the region?

Rishi Sunak: I point my hon. Friend to the statement. First and foremost, we have to be resolute in protecting regional security and standing up for Israel when situations such as this happen. Secondly, we have to be committed to a two-state solution, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about—the regional co-operation over the weekend demonstrated that there is much to be hopeful for. Thirdly, we must see an immediate humanitarian pause in Gaza, so that we can get the hostages out and aid in. That is the British approach. It is the right approach and we will work very hard to bring it about.

Stella Creasy: The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has warned that Europe is in a “pre-war era” because of the situation in Russia. Our Prime Minister rightly said that these were not mutually exclusive conflicts but interlinked. Therefore, it is important that we co-ordinate, just as we have seen co-ordination at the United Nations. He will be aware of the real concern that the UN’s sanctions regime on both Iran and Russia is being undermined. The UN has combined to support and call for a ceasefire. What more is the Prime Minister doing to make sure that the UN works for sanctions on both Russia and Iran? Does he recognise that waiting until June for the G7 to act may be too long when every day counts in stopping further military action?

Rishi Sunak: What I was talking about on the G7 was with regard to Russian assets, but obviously the G7 has an outsize economic role to play and so it is important that there is G7 co-ordination first and foremost. Last year, we funded the economic deterrence regime which we have specifically to target sanctions evasion. The hon. Lady is right to say that that is a growing issue, and I can reassure her that, together with our allies, we are tackling it.

James Morris: Notwithstanding the drones and missiles launched by Iran, which were rightly taken out by UK planes and our allies, the Iranians prefer to operate in the shadows, through proxies and through an increasingly sophisticated cyber operation. Does the Prime Minister agree that our priority should be working with international allies to go after Iran’s promotion of illicit finances and weapons smuggling, as well as working with our international partners to combat Iran’s cyber operations?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that and I can reassure him that we are working closely with international partners, not least on cyber, but also on weapons smuggling. As I said, I am pleased that the Royal Navy is playing a significant role in combating that, with interdictions of illegal arms shipments both last year and the year before, and by contributing as we speak to Operation Prosperity Guardian.

Andy McDonald: I would just point out to the Prime Minister that a nation state’s capacity to observe international humanitarian law is quite different from its actually doing so. At this terrifying moment for the world, we are all mightily relieved that Iran, which must be condemned for what it did, failed to inflict serious loss of life on people in the region. The de-escalation call is correct, as is the commitment not to engage in offensive action. He was explicit in his statement that all people are entitled to security and peace, but sadly for the people of Gaza the calls for restraint have not worked. What additional options is he considering? Surely an immediate ceasefire and the funding of UNRWA is the best way to secure security for the region and the release of all the hostages.

Rishi Sunak: It is important that the hostages are released, and that is what we continue to call for. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it was Hamas, yet again this weekend, who rejected the latest round of negotiations to get those hostages back to safety.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am anxious to get everybody in, so I plead for brevity in the questions.

Jack Lopresti: I place on the record my condolences to the Speaker and his family.
I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and the leadership he has shown. Given this despicable attack on the civilian population of Israel by Iran, does he agree with me that the world cannot risk a nuclear-armed Iran? Will he commit to supporting whatever it takes, including not taking military action off the table, to ensure that that nightmare never happens?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said, there is no credible civilian justification for the enrichment levels we have seen and that the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported in Iran. We are committed to using all diplomatic tools to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, including using the snapback mechanism if necessary.

Neale Hanvey: I oppose all acts of violence. I welcome the Prime Minister’s call for de-escalation and restraint, but I cannot be the only person who wonders where those calls for de-escalation and restraint were six months ago. Given those calls, does the Prime Minister share my concern that the political fortunes of Prime Minister Netanyahu, in whose hands such a choice rests, are so heavily invested in the continuation of the conflict?

Rishi Sunak: We have continued to call on the Israeli Government to do everything they can to protect civilian life, as they exercise their right and duty to ensure security for citizens. I will continue to raise those points with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Bob Blackman: Over the weekend Iran effectively declared war on our friend and ally, Israel. When the Prime Minister talks to Prime Minister Netanyahu, he will have to be very careful about how he persuades him to exercise self-restraint. There has to be a menu of options for what the British Government and  the British people will do in assisting Israel and resisting Iran. The fundamentals that are required are the proscription of the IRGC, the removal of the embassy here and the return of all those officials to Iran, the return of our officials to the United Kingdom, and the harshest possible sanctions against the regime in Iran.

Rishi Sunak: We have already sanctioned over 400 different Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety. We continue to discuss with international partners how best we can co-ordinate future actions.

Alex Davies-Jones: Everyone in this House is united in wanting to see the fighting in Gaza come to an end as soon as possible, with a sustainable ceasefire in place. As the Prime Minister rightly states, it was once again Hamas who rejected a US-brokered deal that would see the fighting stop, the release of hostages and allow far more aid into Gaza. What pressure is the Government applying to our allies in the region who provide support to Hamas, to urge them to do all they can to make Hamas accept a deal?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and agree with her. We are doing everything we can talking to allies in the region to put pressure on Hamas to accept a deal and get the hostages released. That is the best and most important way we can move towards the sustainable ceasefire that we all want to see.

Steve Double: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and the clear leadership he is providing on this important matter. As a beacon of liberal democracy in the region, Israel’s security is our security. It is clear that serious loss of life was avoided at the weekend only because of the effectiveness of Israeli defence mechanisms, supported by the UK and others. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that those calling for an arms embargo against Israel are not only misguided, but risk weakening Israel’s ability to defend itself and encouraging those who wish Israel harm?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said, we stand by Israel’s right to defend itself. It is important that it continues to abide by international humanitarian law—that will always be important to us. We continue to keep all arms exports under review. We have one of the strictest regimes anywhere in the world.

Anum Qaisar: The events of the weekend mark a dangerous new chapter in a long history of conflict in the middle east. Does the Prime Minister accept that proportionality is key and must include the conduct of all parties, including the 192 days of uninterrupted and constant bombardment of Gaza in response to what was, of course, a horrific attack by Hamas? That has killed over 33,000 civilians in Gaza, a place where children look to the sky not knowing if aid or bombs are going to fall on them. I ask the Prime Minister: is that proportionate?

Rishi Sunak: We continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and ensure security for its citizens. It must do that in accordance with international humanitarian law; we will continue to make that point to the Israelis.

Greg Smith: I join others in thanking the Prime Minister for his leadership in ensuring that the United Kingdom Government stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally, Israel, in the face of yet another attack. Does he agree that, in order to live in safety and security, the first and most pressing mission for Israel continues to be the necessity of defeating Hamas? The harsh reality is that that will require an operation in Rafah, in which every step is taken to protect civilian life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the path to peace in the middle east?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the threat that Hamas pose to the security and safety of the people of Israel. The Foreign Secretary set out in detail our view on the right approach to Rafah from this point forward just a couple of weeks ago.

Andrew Slaughter: The Prime Minister rightly calls for restraint and de-escalation in the middle east, but is there not more chance that his words will carry weight if a ceasefire is advocated for all sides, including the warring parties in Gaza?

Rishi Sunak: We have called for an immediate humanitarian pause in Gaza, so that hostages can be released and aid can go in, and for that to form the basis of a more lasting and sustainable ceasefire.

Anna Firth: I thank the Prime Minister for his strong international leadership in this area, and for his calls for restraint. He will agree that Iran is the dangerous and destabilising player in this region, whether by itself directly or through its proxies. It is also a despotic, medieval regime. There were 853 executions last year—an eight-year high—including 22 women. As the Prime Minister works urgently with the G7, please will he confirm that no reasonable option should be off the table, including the proscription of  the IRGC?

Rishi Sunak: Iran’s human rights record remains completely unacceptable. We have sanctioned almost 100 entities and individuals specifically for human rights violations. For example, we have condemned Iran’s surging use of the death penalty, and at the 78th UN General Assembly, we co-sponsored the Iran human rights resolution calling for Iran to issue a moratorium on executions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I say once again that I am anxious to get everyone in, but I can only do that if the questions are brief.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thirty-three thousand people have died in Gaza. More bombs have been dropped there than were dropped in the whole of the Iraq war. This weekend’s horrific events show the danger of a war escalating across the whole region. Does the Prime Minister recognise that the kernel of the whole issue across the region is the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine? What does he say about bringing an end to that occupation, and calling for a permanent ceasefire?

Rishi Sunak: Of course we want to see, and remain committed to, a two-state solution, and we are working hard to bring that about, but the biggest cause of regional instability is the pernicious influence of Iran, and nobody else.

Kieran Mullan: Does the Prime Minister agree that even those who want to link the conflict between Israel and Hamas with the conduct of this attack have to recognise that, since its inception decades ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran has sought the destruction not only of our way of life, but of Israel and its people, and we should never hesitate to play our part in preventing that?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Andrew Gwynne: I echo the calls for restraint and de-escalation. I was interested in what the Prime Minister said about the diplomatic efforts over the past six months, with the Palestinian Authority looking towards a two-state solution. Given that the issues are settlements, water and access between Gaza and the west bank and Jerusalem, what window of opportunity does he think there is with the Netanyahu Government to get all parties round the table?

Rishi Sunak: That is something that we continually push for. In the meantime, we also focus on building up the technical and administrative capability of the Palestinian Authority, so that they are in a position to provide effective and strong governance for the west bank and Gaza when the moment that that is possible arrives, and we are working very hard to bring that about.

Janet Daby: Yesterday, the United Nations Secretary-General said:
“The Middle East is on the brink. The people of the region are confronting a real danger of a devastating full-scale conflict. Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate”.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary-General, and if so, what is the Government’s strategy to achieve this, as the Prime Minister works with our international allies?

Rishi Sunak: Of course we want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed, which would be deeply destabilising for the region and risk more lives. That is a message that all Government Ministers will be taking to their counterparts across the region.

Barry Gardiner: Iran sought to justify its unjustifiable attack on Israel on the basis that it was retaliating for Israel’s attack on its consulate. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister said that in his telephone conversation with Prime Minister Netanyahu later today, he will urge de-escalation. In that telephone conversation, will he set out the measures that the UK will take if, in fact, Israel seeks to retaliate further?

Rishi Sunak: I am not going to comment on hypotheticals, but of course we will calm heads to prevail everywhere across the region.

Beth Winter: Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the Security Council last night, the UN Secretary-General warned of “devastating full-scale conflict” and called for de-escalation and  maximum restraint. Today, the Foreign Secretary said in response that there could have been “thousands of casualties” and pressure for an escalation of this conflict. Does the Prime Minister agree with that, and does he also agree that the very real tens of thousands of deaths and casualties that Israel’s military attacks and imposed famine conditions have caused in Gaza are drivers of regional instability?

Rishi Sunak: We want to avoid further escalation and bloodshed, which would be deeply destabilising for the region and would risk more lives. That is why we are calling on all regional partners to focus on being calm and de-escalating the situation.

Alison Thewliss: My constituent Sama has been trying to get her mother, father and brother out of Gaza since this conflict began. They have been displaced multiple times, and they are now in a tent in Rafah. They cannot apply to come to the UK for safety, as there is no scheme. This is in the UK Government’s hands, and they could waive the need for biometrics, if they so decided. Will the Prime Minister do that and let Sama’s family come to safety?

Rishi Sunak: Obviously, I am not aware of the specifics of the hon. Lady’s case, but I am sure that if she writes to the Home Office, it will be happy to look into it for her.

Mohammad Yasin: Four former UK Supreme Court judges and more than 600 lawyers, including over 60 KCs, have warned the Prime Minister that the UK risks breaking international law relating to a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza if it does not stop its weapons exports to Israel. The Prime Minister is ignoring their warnings and hiding his Government’s legal advice on this matter. Why, Prime Minister?

Rishi Sunak: No, that is not right. We have a very robust and rigorous export licensing regime. The Foreign Secretary confirmed last week that the UK’s position on export licences is unchanged following the latest assessment, and is in line with the legal advice. We keep that position under review, and always act in accordance with that advice.

Debbie Abrahams: The middle east has entered a very dangerous new phase that can be resolved only by diplomatic and political solutions. Can I push the Prime Minister on what he said earlier about the sanctions that he is considering taking, with international allies, against Iran, including the proscribing of the IRGC? Will he also confirm that the UK will not take part in any offensive action of Israel’s?

Rishi Sunak: We acted in a defensive capacity, and we are discussing with G7 allies further diplomatic measures that can be taken in a co-ordinated fashion.

Stephen Farry: I fully condemn Iran’s attack on Israel, and the nature of the Iranian regime. The Prime Minister says that he wants to see stability in the region, but surely there must be honesty and transparency about the fact that Israel itself is a threat to stability, and has already systematically broken  international humanitarian law. The Government have no reluctance to rightly challenge Russia over Ukraine in that regard; why the reluctance in relation to Israel—and indeed the reluctance to publish the associated legal advice?

Rishi Sunak: As I said, I do not think there is any equivalence between what Vladimir Putin is doing in Ukraine and what Israel is doing to ensure the security of its citizens in the face of an appalling terrorist attack.

Christian Wakeford: It has been over 15 months since it was reported that proscription of the IRGC was imminent. Since then, Iran has continued to fund and supply Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Following this continued funding for terror and destabilisation, what more does Iran have to do before the IRGC is proscribed?

Rishi Sunak: As I have said, the police, security services and courts all have the tools that they need to sanction, prosecute and mitigate the threats from Iran. We strengthened our Iran sanctions regime recently, and the IRGC is sanctioned in its entirety.

Helen Hayes: The Prime Minister said in his statement that it was important that aid gets into Gaza, and he said a few moments ago that the Government were right to take their time in deciding on the restoration of funding to UNRWA. The organisational infrastructure of UNRWA is unparalleled and cannot be replicated. A further delay on the part of the UK Government will cost further lives, in a context in which famine is taking hold. I urge the Prime Minister to think again and to today set out a path for the restoration of funding to UNRWA.

Rishi Sunak: I know that the whole House will have rightly been appalled by the allegations that UNRWA staff were involved in 7 October. We want UNRWA to give detailed undertakings about changes in personnel policy and procedures to ensure that nothing like that can ever happen again. We are actively working with allies to try to bring the situation to a rapid conclusion. We are expecting final reports from the UN and others on what happened by the end of April, and we intend to clarify the UK’s position on funding once we have reviewed those final reports.

Brendan O'Hara: Israel has indicated that it intends to respond to Iran’s attack, against the advice of the international community, including the UN and the United States. Such a retaliation could tip the region into a catastrophic all-out war, so in terms of leverage to persuade Prime Minister Netanyahu against further retaliation, will the right hon. Gentleman say that, should Israel choose to escalate, there will be no further UK military support for its endeavours in this conflict?

Rishi Sunak: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman meant also to condemn Iran for what happened over the weekend. We will continue to urge de-escalation and for calm heads to prevail on all sides.

Tan Dhesi: Iran is of course no ally of the UK, and its huge unprecedented assault on Israel must be called out, but the UK Government must now work hard to prevent further escalation of the crisis in an already volatile region. It is a matter of principle that diplomatic premises are not targeted, so will the Prime Minister confirm what conversations he has had with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu about the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, or whether he plans to discuss that with him?

Rishi Sunak: As I said, we will continue to urge de-escalation and for calm heads to prevail on all sides. As the Foreign Secretary said this morning, we urge Israel in particular to recognise that it has successfully repelled the Iranian attacks, and that Iran is ever more isolated on the world stage.

Kerry McCarthy: Jacqui, the mother of murdered aid worker James Kirby, is my constituent. I am sure that she will agree with the Prime Minister’s description of her son as a hero. There is a real danger—I am already seeing this, as events move on—that his death will end up being chalked up as collateral damage in this conflict. Will the Prime Minister show that he understands the family’s need to see justice done, and will he keep up the pressure on Israel about the review? The family want to know why James was killed, and that someone will be held responsible.

Rishi Sunak: My condolences to Jacqui and the families of all those who were tragically killed as they delivered aid. As I said, they were heroes and they absolutely deserve our admiration. Our thoughts will be with all their families. I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer about what we have asked of the Israelis. What is crystal clear is that there needs to be a considerable improvement in the deconfliction mechanisms between Israel and aid agencies. I have already made that point to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we expect to see that followed through.

Christine Jardine: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in unequivocally condemning the action of the Iranian regime on Saturday, and in supporting the actions of our RAF. Like many others, my Edinburgh West constituents are concerned that attention will now be taken away from the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza. Can the Prime Minister assure us that when he speaks to the Prime Minister of Israel later today, he will impress upon him not only the need for restraint to restabilise the region, but the unique opportunity he has now to take steps towards peace by promoting a ceasefire and allowing aid into Gaza?

Rishi Sunak: Our position remains unchanged: we continue to want to see an immediate humanitarian pause so that hostages are released and aid goes in, and we want Israel to immediately deliver on its commitments to significantly increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza through the various measures it has set out.

Toby Perkins: The question from the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) exposed that there is much more we could be  doing to undermine the murderous Iranian regime. Simultaneously, the way that Israel continues to ignore  the United Nations resolution is deeply troubling. Is the Prime Minister worried that his approach at the moment risks failing, both on Iran and on Israel?

Rishi Sunak: No; as we have demonstrated this weekend, the UK is leading with allies, defending our values and our interests, and standing together with our friends to bring about regional security. That is good for people in the region, and it is good for people here at home, too.

Rupa Huq: Iran’s reckless actions only add more fuel to an already raging fire, so will the Prime Minister proscribe the IRGC, and what assessment has he made of whether bombing a consulate violates international law? What are we doing to uphold that principle in a war that has gone on for six months and cost so many lives?

Rishi Sunak: I refer the hon. Lady to any of my previous answers on both those topics.

Emma Hardy: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), the Prime Minister said that he would take the time to set the right future approach to UNRWA. As the famine continues, I wonder how much time the Prime Minister needs before he makes up his mind to restore funding and get aid to the people who need it.

Rishi Sunak: What the hon. Lady failed to mention was the shocking allegations of people involved in UNRWA also being involved in the massacre on 7 October. It is right that those allegations are properly investigated and new procedures are put in place to ensure that that could never happen again. The final reports, which have been commissioned, are due at the end of April. We are already in dialogue with our partners; once we review those reports, we will set out our future approach, but that is not to say that we are not already doing an enormous amount to bring more aid into the region. We have tripled our commitment, and right now are delivering aid by land, sea and air. We are taking a leading role, and everyone in this House should be incredibly proud of what the UK is bringing to the table.

Claudia Webbe: The action of the Royal Air Force in shooting down Iranian drones and cruise missiles heading to, and over, Israel over the weekend raises a very serious question. Since the UK is clearly capable of acting to prevent air strikes in the region, and both the International Court of Justice and the UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories have implicated Israel in a genocide in Gaza, why are the Government not interested in fulfilling their obligations under international law by protecting Palestinian women and children from Israeli airstrikes? Why are  the Government not acting to prevent the killing of Palestinians?

Rishi Sunak: I disagree with the hon. Lady. While, of course, we respect the role and the independence of the ICJ, our view is that Israel’s actions in Gaza can simply not be described as a genocide, and that case is not helpful at all in achieving our goal of a sustainable and lasting ceasefire.

Matt Western: The threat of imminent famine hangs over the people of Gaza; aid urgently needs to get into the country and to be safely distributed. With the deaths of those three UK charity workers, working for World Central Kitchen, will the Prime Minister confirm whether he has received a written apology from the Prime Minister of Israel?

Rishi Sunak: I spoke explicitly to the Prime Minister of Israel, who did that when I spoke to him the very next day. We have made absolutely crystal clear our concerns about what has happened, and as I have previously pointed out, we are now looking through the preliminary findings. We are pleased to see the early suspension of two officers involved; now what we need is reform of Israel’s deconfliction mechanism to ensure the future safety of aid workers.

Rachael Maskell: In speaking to the Prime Minister of Israel this evening and calling for restraint, will the Prime Minister put that into action? Should the Prime Minister of Israel say that he will further assault Gaza or impede aid, will the Prime Minister action that restraint and call for an immediate ceasefire?

Rishi Sunak: We have already called for an immediate humanitarian pause so that more aid can get in and hostages can be released. As I say, we have tripled our aid commitment, and are bringing aid in by air, land and sea, together with our allies.

Alan Brown: Over 33,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, including 14,000 children. Some 76,000 civilians have been injured or maimed and 700 healthcare and aid workers have been killed. There is an ongoing famine, and the UK Government under the Prime Minister’s watch are now trying to find ways around the Israeli blockade that is preventing aid from getting in; is that not in itself an admission that the ongoing Israeli actions are disproportionate, and should we not be calling them out as such?

Rishi Sunak: We have been consistently clear that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have called on the Israelis to open up more aid corridors and have them open more often; they set out a series of steps just recently, and now we want to see them deliver on those.

Kim Johnson: The middle east is in a crisis, and I and thousands of my Riverside constituents have been calling for a ceasefire to end the destruction in Gaza and prevent a widening conflict in the middle east. The Prime Minister has talked about diplomatic action towards a two-state solution. Can he say what action he is taking against the far-right Ministers in the Israeli Government who are opposed to a two-state solution?

Rishi Sunak: We have been very clear that our view is that we should have a two-state solution, and we are making sure we do everything we can to contribute to that aim.

Michael Shanks: On the wider humanitarian crisis in Gaza, there is now a famine across the area. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), I think the Prime Minister said that he has received the interim report on UNRWA and that in due course he will receive the final report. Will he publish the interim report, and if not, why not? With Canada, France, Finland, Australia, Sweden and the EU having now restored funding, why does the UK stand alone?

Rishi Sunak: When it comes to UNRWA, it is the UN that is publishing the expected final reports towards the end of April. After receiving them, we will clarify and set out the UK’s position on future funding.

Jim Shannon: First, I thank the Prime Minister very much for his decisive action in support of Israel, and I thank our world-class Royal Air Force for preventing further loss of life. Just last week, I had an opportunity to be in Israel to visit the kibbutz where the people—innocent Jews—were murdered. I went to the site of the Nova music festival, where over 1,000 Israelis were murdered, and I spoke to some of those families.
On Hamas and their sponsorship by the IRGC, does the Prime Minister agree that Hamas and the IRGC can be likened to cancer, and that to save life throughout the middle east and to retain stability the cancer of Hamas and the IRGC needs to be removed urgently by all means necessary?

Rishi Sunak: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the destabilising impact of Iran across the region, including action through proxies such as Hamas, the Houthis and others, and we will do everything we can to counter that threat.

Richard Foord: Our constituents will always want us to think about the second-order consequences of British military action. When the Government deployed the RAF to defend civilians in Libya, a full parliamentary debate was held afterwards and a vote was granted to Members of this House. That was in line with the convention that has been observed for most of the last 20 years. Will the Government grant Members a full debate and a vote on British military action, even after the action has happened?

Rishi Sunak: No, I do not believe that is necessary. I am obviously here answering questions. It is my job to take action where I believe it is necessary, and it is the job of Parliament to hold me accountable for that. But it was right that we moved quickly to respond to an immediate and dangerous threat. Publicising any action in advance would undermine the effectiveness of the operation. We acted in line with precedent, and we have also made very clear and public statements that we will not hesitate to protect our allies.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I suspect there will be a slight change of personnel before the next statement.

Cass Review

Victoria Atkins: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Cass review of gender identity services for children and young people. May I say how pleased I am that we are joined by parents of children who have been affected by some of the issues raised in this review? I hope all of us will bear the sensitivities of this debate in mind as we discuss it this afternoon.
This review strikes hard and sure at an area of public policy where fashionable cultural values have overtaken evidence, safety and biological reality. This must now stop. As recently as 2009, the NHS’s sole gender identity development service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust received fewer than 60 referrals for children and young people, and just 15 for adolescent girls. Since then, demand has surged. By 2016, over 1,700 children and young people a year were referred—a 34-fold increase. More than half were teenage girls. In 2022, more than 5,000 children and young people were referred to gender identity clinics, and almost three quarters were female.
This exponential increase in demand is not a coincidence; it has been driven by a number of factors which I will come to later, but at its heart it was driven by a myth. This myth was that for children and young people grappling with adolescence who were questioning their identity, their sexuality or their path in life, the answer to their questions was inevitably to change gender to solve their feelings of unease, discomfort or distress.
That near-uniform prescription was imposed on children and young people with complex needs without full and thoughtful consideration of their wider needs, including, as is set out in the report, conditions such as neurodiversity, experiences such as childhood trauma or mental health conditions, or indeed discovering who it is that they may one day fall in love with. Indeed, the response from some of the people who should have protected them—some of the clinicians in charge of their care at the Tavistock clinic—was almost always to put them on an irreversible path: blocking puberty, then prescribing cross-sex hormones, and on to surgery as an adult. In other words, such professionals were not asking the right questions of themselves or of their patients.
That is why in 2020, with the support of my predecessors, my right hon. Friends the Members for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), NHS England commissioned Dr Hilary Cass to examine the state of services for children questioning their gender. I would like to start by thanking Dr Cass and her team for undertaking a considered, comprehensive and courageous review into an extremely contentious area of healthcare. Since NHS England commissioned the review in 2020, they have meticulously unpicked what went wrong, what the evidence really shows and how to design a fundamentally different service that better serves the needs of children.
I must also thank those who raised the alarm and contributed to the review over the last four years: the clinicians who spoke up against their peers to blow the whistle about what was happening at the Tavistock clinic, even though it risked their careers; the journalists,  academics and activists who listened to their stories and investigated further, even when they were derided as bigots and transphobes; the parents who were just trying their best to support their children, but were so badly let down by a service that vilified them for questioning whether the interventions offered were right for their children; and, of course, the young people themselves who have shared their experiences, including those who have gone through the pain of de-transitioning only to find out that the so-called “reversible” treatments they were offered are not in fact reversible.
The Cass review makes for sober reading. It is extremely thorough, so I will not attempt to cover all its recommendations today, but I genuinely encourage all Members to read the report in full. It should concern every single Member of this House that part of our public space—the NHS—was overtaken by a culture of secrecy and ideology that was allowed to trump evidence and safety. We say enough is enough; our young people deserve better, and we must do whatever it takes to protect them.
Since the publication of Dr Cass’s interim report in 2022, a series of important changes have been made, and I put on record my thanks to NHS England’s chief executive, Amanda Pritchard, and all those at NHS England who have worked hard with Dr Cass to implement them. On 31 March, the Tavistock clinic finally closed, having stopped seeing new patients a year earlier. Two new regional hubs have been opened, in partnership with the country’s most prestigious children’s hospitals, to ensure that children are supported by specialist, multidisciplinary teams. Indeed, another hub will follow in Bristol later this year.
In the past few weeks, NHS England made the landmark decision to end the routine prescription to children of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria. On the day of publication of Dr Cass’s final report, it announced that it is stopping children under 18 from being seen by adult gender services with immediate effect, and an urgent review on clinical policy for cross-sex hormones will now follow without delay. I also welcome NHS England’s plans to bring forward its full review of adult services, including Dr Cass’s recommendation for a follow-through service for young people up to the age of 25.
I also share Dr Cass’s concerns that clinicians who subscribe to gender ideology will try to use private providers to get around the rules. Let me give a very clear warning: prescribing is a highly regulated activity, and the Care Quality Commission has not licensed any gender clinic to prescribe hormone blockers or cross-sex hormones to people under the age of 16. Any clinic that does may be committing extremely serious regulatory offences for which its licence can be revoked and its clinicians can be struck off. My officials have been in contact with the CQC following the final report to ask that it looks again at the age thresholds in its licensing conditions.
The CQC has also reassured us that it will incorporate Dr Cass’s recommendations into their safe care and treatment standards for all care providers. That means that all new providers will be asked if their practices respect the Cass review, and all existing providers have to meet the same rigorous standards when they are reviewed by the CQC. My officials met the General Medical Council over the weekend, and will do so again in the coming days, to understand how it will ensure  that every clinician on its register follows its code of practice and implements the wider findings of the Cass review.
It is morally and medically reprehensible that some online providers not registered in the UK have stated their intention to continue to issue prescriptions to children in this country. I am looking closely at what can be done to curtail any loopholes in prescribing practices, including legislative options. Nothing is off the table, and I will update the House in due course as we progress that work at pace.
Dr Cass also found that there was a lack of robust data on what happened to the 9,000 children who were treated by gender identity services between 2009 and 2020. Many went on to continue their treatment at adult clinics, and the University of York had been due to research the long-term consequences of treatment they received as children, so that we can properly support them through their journey into adulthood. It was expected to provide important insights into the clinic’s work, including how many patients de-transitioned and how many were also diagnosed with a mental health condition or an autism spectrum disorder.
This Government took the unprecedented step of changing the law to make it possible for adult gender clinics to share medical data with the university. All bar one of the adult gender clinics refused to co-operate with this vital research. To quote Dr Cass, that is “unacceptable”, but I would go even further: I think it is deplorable and a dereliction of their professional duty. I am pleased to update the House that following the publication of Dr Cass’s report, I have been informed that all seven clinical leads for the adult gender services now intend to fully participate in this important work.
Dr Cass also concludes that a cultural shift alone “does not adequately explain” the huge growth in young women being referred to gender services. She paints an alarming picture of digitally engaged young women who are frequently exposed to pornography involving violent, coercive, degrading and pain-inducing acts. Is it any wonder than more and more of them are looking for ways to opt out of becoming women? That is deeply troubling and, as Dr Cass makes clear, we have a duty to support those young women with considered, evidence-based care.
Our children deserve healthcare that is compassionate, caring and careful. Their safety and wellbeing must come above any other concern, and anyone who threatens it must be held to account. I will work with NHS England to root out the ideology that has caused so much unnecessary harm, to support those who have already received life-altering treatment, to give the next generation access to holistic care, and to protect our children’s futures. Anything less would be neglecting our duty to the next generation. That will not happen under this Government, and it will not happen under my watch.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and, even more importantly, Dr Hilary Cass and her team for the  thoughtful and thorough way in which they have undertaken their work. Dr Cass has navigated the complexities and sensitivities of the subject with academic rigour, providing an evidence-led framework for children to receive the best possible healthcare. I also pay tribute to journalists such as Hannah Barnes and the whistleblowers who together helped to shine a light on what was going on at the Tavistock clinic.
At the heart of the complexity around this issue are two things that are true simultaneously. There are trans adults in this country who have followed a medical pathway and who say that, for all the pain and difficulty that involved, it was not just life-affirming; it was lifesaving. There are also people in this country who followed a medical pathway but who say it was a disaster that ruined their lives irreversibly, and they ask how anyone could have let that happen. For the sake of all those children, young people and now adults—but particularly those being referred into gender identity services today—we have a duty to get this right.
What has emerged in the Cass review is a scandal. It is a scandal that children and young people are waiting far too long—often years—for care while their wellbeing deteriorates and their childhood slips away. It is scandalous that medical interventions have been made on the basis of shaky evidence. It is scandalous that, despite all that, some NHS providers refused to co-operate with Dr Cass’s review. Perhaps the worst scandal of all is that the toxicity of this discussion means that people have felt silenced, and it required investigative journalism to prompt the review to take place. This particularly vulnerable group of children and young people are at the wrong end of all the statistics for mental ill health, suicide and self-harm. There is no doubt that they have been very badly let down, so we owe it to them to approach this discussion with the same care and sensitivity with which Dr Cass undertook her review.
Parts of the report will sound familiar to anyone acquainted with the NHS today. Children and young people face unacceptably long waiting lists and are unable to get the mental health support and assessments they require, and services face significant staff shortages, with a lack of workforce planning driving all of that. As with so many parts of the NHS today, the report paints a picture of a service unable to cope with demand. Dr Cass is clear that care must be personal and holistic. Will the Secretary of State set out how she plans to cut waiting times for assessments for mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions?
Waiting lists are so bad in some cases that children are passing into adulthood before they have had their first appointment with gender identity services, leaving them facing a cliff edge. Cass recommends follow-through services up to the age of 25 to ensure continuity of care. Will the Secretary of State indicate how long she thinks it will take to establish those services?
Labour welcomed the decision by NHS England last month to stop the routine prescription of puberty blockers to under-18s. The loophole that exists for private providers risks sparking a black market. The Secretary of State has said that she expects private clinics to follow the report’s recommendations to follow the evidence. I underline our support for her expectations on compliance. Can she give an indication of whether she thinks that further regulation may be needed to ensure adequate enforcement of the recommendations?
The refusal of adult gender services to share data on the long-term experience of patients is inexcusable—as the Secretary of State said, it is deplorable. The data does not belong to them; it belongs to the NHS and, crucially, to patients. I welcome their coming forward now, but how was this allowed to happen, and what accountability does she think would be appropriate?
This report must provide a watershed moment for the NHS’s gender identity services. Children’s healthcare should always be led by evidence and be in the best interests of children’s welfare. Dr Cass’s report has provided the basis on which to go forward. The report must also provide a watershed moment for the way in which our society and our politics discuss this issue. There are children, young people and adults—including trans children, young people and adults—in this country who are desperately worried and frightened by the toxicity of this debate. There are healthcare professionals who are scared to do their job and make their views known. Dr Cass said that
“toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder”
and it will hamper the research that is essential to finding a way forward.
Even in a general election year, there is surely one issue on which we can down tools and work together: the pursuit of the healthcare of vulnerable people. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid). We had many scraps across the Dispatch Box, but for his role in commissioning this review he deserves our thanks and respect. I hope to work constructively with the Health Secretary to put children’s health and wellbeing above the political fray.

Victoria Atkins: I welcome all those who have changed their minds about this critical issue. In order to move forward and get on with the vital work that Dr Cass recommends, we need more people to face up to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them feel. I hope the hon. Gentleman has the humility to understand that the ideology that he and his colleagues espoused was part of the problem. He talked about the culture and the toxicity of the debate. Does he understand the hurt that he caused to people when he told them to “just get over it”? Does he know that when he and his friends on the left spent the last decade crying, “Culture wars,” when legitimate concerns were raised created an atmosphere of intimidation, with the impact on the workforce that he rightly described? People were scared or worried to go into it.
Does the hon. Gentleman now have the good grace to apologise to those who have been maligned in public life—including his own female colleagues—and for the chilling effect that this has had on clinicians, journalists and campaigners who were trying to raise the alarm? I say that because I want to believe the hon. Gentleman when he says that he has turned a corner on this issue. We have to start with a new page, for the sake not just of the children and young people we are looking after but of their families, many of whom will be watching this, living with the consequences of the ideology and secrecy, wondering how on earth the hon. Gentleman talks about general elections when, every single minute and day, their children have to live with treatment that can never be reversed.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The report is very welcome, but it has been a long time coming. One issue I would like to put to my right hon. Friend is the whole failure of governance that it shows. In particular, NHS England’s specialist commissioning requires challenge. As she explained, what was initially commissioned as a treatment course for a small minority of people has been allowed to expand unchecked and without any consideration of the ethics of what was being done to children. What will she do to ensure that does not happen again? Secondly, the Tavistock clearly enjoyed the popularity brought by being at the front end of what was seen as a set of cutting-edge treatments. Frankly, the governors allowed that to get in the way of what they should have been doing: ensuring patient safety. What does she propose to do about that as well?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend, who in her parliamentary career has done so much to shine a light on this sort of behaviour. She has espoused worries, both publicly and privately, about the children and young people at the heart of this matter. Looking to the future, the Tavistock clinic has shut. As I said, it stopped admitting patients a year ago. The new services that are already in place—the two new hubs, with plans to expand further across the country—are about ensuring a multidisciplinary approach to young people, so that, with exactly the experiences Dr Cass sets outs so starkly in her report, children are treated as human beings and patients, not as siloed conditions. One of the main problems that emerged with the Tavistock behaviour and the way it took place is that gender questioning was siloed in a way that no other health or mental health condition was. We want to move back to a place where clinicians are no longer scared of looking after children and young people with these issues, and that they see it as part of their general practice and general work. That is how we are best going to address the very complex needs of many of these children and young people.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: I am grateful for advance sight of the statement.
Nobody’s identity should be up for debate, and nor should it be used as a political football. Dr Cass said in her report:
“Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse, and in the long run will also hamper the research that is essential to finding the best way of supporting them to thrive.”
That polarisation is the last thing needed by young people in accessing care, their families and the NHS staff working hard to care for them. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must all remain respectful at all times when discussing these important issues, and that decisions on this and any other type of treatment should rightly be made by clinicians, not politicians?
Dr Cass explicitly makes the point that her report is not about questioning trans identities or rolling back access to healthcare for young trans people. Indeed, supporting and improving the gender identity healthcare system for all, including children and young people, is what we should be focused on. So can the Secretary of  State confirm today whether any additional funding will be made available to ensure that young trans people can access the quality healthcare they need and deserve?
Finally, on conversion practices, the Government Equalities Office said last month in an answer to a written question:
“The Government expects to deliver a draft Bill that takes account of the independent Cass review”.
Can the Secretary of State provide an update on what conversations she has had with Cabinet colleagues on how the Cass review will influence the UK Government’s legislative proposals on banning conversion practices, and when can we expect them to be published?

Victoria Atkins: I encourage both the Scottish National party in Scotland and Labour in Wales—health is devolved in those countries, of course—to respond as quickly as possible to the findings of the review. The hon. Lady asks whether it is Barnett-ised. For these purposes, our work to ensure that the clinics meet the needs of our population in England is not additional money. We are re-prioritising within NHS budgets to ensure that the services are spread across the country. I encourage the Scottish nationalists to prioritise the needs of their children and young people in the same way.
I would also gently make the point that, when it comes to the atmosphere of this debate, I do not believe it has been helped by the SNP’s highly controversial Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. I note, for example, the behaviour and engagement on Twitter of very high-profile people in Scotland, and the impact that it has had when people have dared to name activists in this arena. I would also ask the Scottish Labour party to explain why it helped the SNP to pass that Act, because to me this seems to be all about the atmosphere.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Caroline Nokes: Dr Cass’s observations about violent and degrading pornography are chilling, and we know of the impact that is having not just on young girls but on all our young people. Her recommendations also include significant and specific references to expanded services and follow-through services for 17 to 25-year-olds. What concerns has my right hon. Friend about the capacity for that, and about the possible impact on other areas of healthcare?
We know that the transition from children’s services to adult services can be problematic in the case of a wide range of services, not least for those suffering from body dysmorphia or eating disorders. Might there be any crossover, with young people having access to some sort of interim service before the age of 25, and will more funds be committed so that we do not continue to see what all of us will face in our constituencies: the horror of young people being unable to access child and adolescent mental health services before they turn 18 and become reliant on adult mental health care?

Victoria Atkins: My right hon. Friend is right to identify the cohort of young people between the ages of 17 and 25 as being of particular concern. Now that we have a clear pathway in relation to the treatment of children and young people under the age of 17, I have  asked NHSE to focus primarily on that next cohort. Speaking to parents gives one a very real sense of their concerns about what they describe as the cliff edge between children and young people’s services and adult services for this very vulnerable group of young people. I do not want that to continue, and over the coming months we will see NHSE develop work to help that cohort.
My right hon. Friend has an understanding not just of how transformational the report and its evidence are, but of the challenges that this means for our health service in England and how we choose to respond. As for funding, NHSE has committed more than £17 million to the two new hubs in the current financial year, and I hope and expect that our devolved Administrations will commit similar sums to looking after children and young people in their areas.

Nia Griffith: The Secretary of State has spoken of the need for multi-site centres, and has pointed out that two hubs have already been established. Will she tell us a little more about her plans to expand this to make it multi-site, and when that is likely to happen?

Victoria Atkins: As I have said, we hope to expand it to Bristol later in the year, and there will be a further three or four sites across England. However—this is a really important part of the report—this is not just about specialist services but about giving clinicians the necessary confidence to look after children and young people who may well be presenting at their clinics or surgeries with this condition as one of a number of conditions. We want to give them back that confidence, and the comfort of knowing that they need not just go down the narrow pathway of specialist services. Of course that will be appropriate for many, but we want to treat the whole child rather than treating just this particular condition, as has happened in the past.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I must first declare my interest as a practising NHS consultant paediatrician whose practice sometimes involves caring for children with the condition we have been describing.
The Cass Review makes for sobering reading. This is an example of ideology being allowed to trump evidence and safeguarding. Let me give the Secretary of State a specific example. Individuals have thwarted the attempts of those working on the report to conduct research that would give them a better understanding of the outcomes for some children. I am pleased to hear that those people are now co-operating, but we should note the contents of a letter from John Stewart, the national director of specialised commissioning, which is appended to the report. He says that although NHS England wrote to the chief executives and medical directors of all NHS trusts, the research data was not released. One of the duties of doctors that are specified by the General Medical Council is to
“Engage with colleagues to maintain and improve the safety and quality of…care.”
May I ask the Secretary of State who exactly blocked that data, what investigations will be carried out to find out which individuals were responsible, and how they will individually be held accountable for their actions? How was it possible for them to do this in the first place, and what is she doing to ensure that data cannot be blocked in the same way in the future?

Victoria Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing her clinical expertise and experience to the Chamber and to this important debate. As for her precise questions about who did what and when, I hope she will understand that I have been working at pace on this report over the last few days; I have asked these questions myself, and I will update the House when I am in a position to do so.
Let me return the House’s attention to the expectation, not just moral but professional—in the light of the report and the evidence that it has produced—that clinicians and other medical professionals will act in accordance with these recommendations. That will mean that when regulators examine the conduct of medical professionals, they do so against this backdrop and in the context of these expectations. If there are people who are operating under the misguided apprehension that their ideology trumps the evidence, I fully expect the regulators to crack down on that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am anxious to ensure that everyone gets in, because this is an important statement, but we also need to ensure that the questions are brief so that the Secretary of State can give brief responses. We have a big debate ahead of us on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, followed by another debate on the hospice movement, and I am sure that many Members will want to participate in those as well. Perhaps they will bear that in mind when framing their questions.

Rosie Duffield: Let me first thank the Secretary of State for her thoughtful and considered statement on the Cass review, and especially for mentioning the journalists, such as my friend Hannah Barnes, who blew the whistle on the Tavistock clinic. As she has said, those who have raised this issue over the last few years, desperately concerned about the safeguarding of vulnerable children and young people—too young to make life-changing decisions—are owed a heartfelt apology for being no-platformed, ghosted, sidelined and disciplined at the behest of a few extreme groups of activists, some within political parties. Does she agree that these academics, politicians, writers, psychologists and actors, along with any other people who have questioned the signing up of their workplaces to Stonewall law, have now been vindicated by Dr Cass’s expert review, and that they should be apologised to?

Victoria Atkins: I come to the Dispatch Box with huge admiration for the hon. Lady for the commitment that she and other Labour Back Benchers have shown, in a culture and an atmosphere in which their views were demeaned and they were sneered at and castigated. Indeed, I hear rumours that efforts were made to remove certain Members from the party itself. This is the moment for apologies and for humility, but also for us to start a clean page and ensure that, when perfectly reasonable questions are asked about the medical treatment of our children, those questions are allowed to be asked in an atmosphere of respect and understanding, so that these vulnerable children and young people are looked after in a caring and careful way.

Miriam Cates: I warmly welcome the Cass review and its findings, and the extraordinarily strong statement made by my right  hon. Friend. I have no doubt that what happened at GIDS—the Gender Identity Development Service—will go down as one of the worst safeguarding and medical scandals of our generation. I pay tribute to the brave parents, including those in the Bayswater support group, who have been raising concerns for years about the ethics and the safety of putting vulnerable children on irreversible and unevidenced medical pathways with the aim of achieving something that can never be achieved, which is to change their sex. Those who spoke up for the interests of children and, frankly, for the interests of common sense were labelled bigots, transphobes and even fascists. Even after concerns were raised and Dr Cass had been commissioned, the Tavistock was allowed to continue to practise, which was a shocking suspension of the precautionary principle. This scandal happened because too many adults put their own desire for social approval above the safety of vulnerable children. How can we make sure that that does not happen again?

Victoria Atkins: As my hon. Friend was asking that question, there were people on the Opposition Benches tutting her. That shows that while some understand the need to keep the debate about the clinical needs of these children and compassion, there are still people on the Opposition Benches who do not get it. For example, in 2020 the deputy leader of the Labour party signed a charter describing bodies such as Woman’s Place UK, which, dare I say, campaigns for single-sex rape refuges—to which the House knows I have an enormous commitment—as “trans-exclusionist hate groups”. That sort of language needs to be apologised for, so that we can all move on. We expect clinicians and medical professionals to do the right thing by the Cass report, and by our children and young people. There needs to be some leadership from all of us in public life to ensure that we set the right example to those people.

Christine Jardine: At its heart, the Cass report sadly highlights the low standard of care for our young people who were caught up in a toxic debate. There were long waiting lists, and the debate seeped into the staffing of the medical profession. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have to look at the wellbeing of our children holistically? How will she overcome the recruitment and staffing problems that have been created by this toxic debate?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady, who has an exemplary record of campaigning on this issue. This comes down to the very careful review by Dr Cass. We have to get away from the idea that if a child presents with gender distress, that is the only part of their health that we should care about and look into. We have to look across the board to ensure that we look after every single part of them and do not assume that medical pathways are the only and inevitable pathways for them. One of the concerns raised in the report is that the terrible mental health issues that many children and young people were suffering from were not being looked after. People were just put on drugs and expected to get on with it. That is wrong, and we are determined to change it.

Paul Bristow: What was the Secretary of State’s reaction to the news that almost all gender clinics refused to co-operate with the Cass review?  Does she agree that this is too important an issue for a circle-the-wagons attitude? What can she do to ensure that Government guidance is followed to the letter, and in spirit, when we tackle a gender ideology that seems to be running rampant through our public institutions?

Victoria Atkins: This is not about my emotions, but I can tell my hon. Friend that I was disgusted and angry. What is more, this is about being able to have conversations in our public space. For example, if our public institutions—whether it is the NHS, schools or whatever—are asked to respond to a thoughtful and careful review such as the Cass report, they must do so, because this information does not belong to them; it belongs to their patients, to future patients—because we want to shape services to help them—and to us as a nation. I welcome such institutions’ about-turn in deciding that they will provide the data. I am pleased that has happened, but my goodness me, I wish they had done it earlier.

Dawn Butler: All trans children and young people deserve access to high-quality and timely healthcare and support. Around 100 studies have not been included in the Cass report, and we need to know why.[Official Report, 22 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 663.] (Correction) The Secretary of State is obviously not concerned about the way that the Cass report has been used to perpetuate a broader hostile environment towards trans people in the UK—a hostile environment created in part by the Government’s delay in reforming the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Misrepresenting the report, and the high-and-mighty attitude from the Secretary of State, helps no one. Will she commit to the extra funding needed to help young people have a holistic approach to their healthcare pathway?

Victoria Atkins: I am not clear whether the hon. Lady supports the report or is castigating it; I have no idea whether she supports it or not. We are trying to use the evidence in this very thorough and thoughtful review, in the words of her Front-Bench spokesman, to help clinicians treat our young people and children in a compassionate, caring way. I have noticed, and have had it reported to me by others who have been watching, that certain campaigners are trying to build up a head of steam to say that the report is somehow flawed. It is not. This is superb evidence, and the NHS has assured us that it will act on it.

Jason McCartney: The Cass review highlights the deterioration of mental health in young people. It particularly highlights the impact of social media, which puts awful pressures on young people. The mental health crisis obviously affects both boys and girls, but as the Secretary of State highlighted earlier, it particularly affects girls and young women. Will she continue to turbocharge child and adolescent mental health services’ crisis teams, and give them the resources that they desperately need to support our young people?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We want to not just help with crisis support, but prevent our young people from getting into a position of crisis in the first place, so we are rolling out mental health support teams, ahead of our schedule, across schools. That is a really important piece of work that will help 44% of the student population, but we want to go even further. In the 12-month period ending in  March 2021, we increased the number of children and young people aged under 18 who received NHS-funded mental health services to some 758,000.[Official Report, 13 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 2WC.] (Correction) Of course, we want that support to be there in the community, but importantly we also want to help clinicians to understand that this is just one of several sets of conditions that they should have confidence to work on, in order to look after the child holistically.

Sammy Wilson: Given the vile campaigns directed towards anyone who disagrees with the transgender lobby, we should congratulate Dr Cass and her team on having the courage to write their report, and the Secretary of State on her robust defence of it. In the light of the report, and given that it seems that the transgender lobby has infiltrated the NHS in England, what steps is she taking to purge that lobby from the NHS? What discussions has she had with Ministers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure that the same policies and practices are not carried out in the public and private sectors there?

Victoria Atkins: The reason why I am able to be so robust on this issue is that I believe in it; on that, I may be different from others. The challenge that the right hon. Gentleman rightly puts forward is that we have to ensure that NHS England acts as an organisation, but also at the individual and local levels, to implement the reforms that the report recommends. I want to be fair to clinicians, medical professionals, managers and others who very much support the review. I want to support them in taking up the recommendations. What individual clinicians may or may not have done in the past will be a matter for both NHS England and the regulators going forward. The moral and professional expectation is that in future, clinicians, medical professionals and all of us will respect the evidence and the recommendations of this important report.

Angela Richardson: I would like to put on the record my thanks to Dr Hilary Cass for her thoughtful and comprehensive review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us across this House who, for the past few years, have been calling for a pause on the ban on conversion therapy while we wait for Cass, because of concerns not with the L, G or B, but the T element of the ban on LGBT conversion therapy, have been completely vindicated in that call?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for her help in raising these difficult questions and for doing so, as she has just demonstrated, in a thoughtful and careful manner. I know that she shares my concern that the children and young people at the heart of this should be our focus. We need to build the system around them, rather than them being slotted into the system, as has happened in the past.
On conversion therapy—again, I am being very mindful of the sensitivities of this—we are committed to supporting all victims of conversion practices, but we want to avoid any unintended consequences and ensure that the draft Bill takes account of the independent Cass review. That is why my Cabinet counterpart, the Minister for Women and Equalities, is leading the work in this area. We are very much considering this complex issue as part of our approach to this sensitive and important matter.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The starting point of all modern medicine must be robust and reliable—in fact, rigorous—evidence. Back in 2017, I tabled a written question at the request of a trans constituent who was concerned that many adults and young people were putting themselves through a process that was not the right one for them. That was in 2017, and we still do not have much better data, but the data is the most important thing; it informs everything.
There has been a chilling effect in this Chamber, and on social media, on people who have spoken out, and who have asked questions like that—questions that we ask for reasons to do with everyday healthcare, which we have denied, and the Government have denied, to the children in our care. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has been fantastic; he has shown great maturity and reflection in his comments in the Chamber and in the media, and so has the Secretary of State, but as someone who has been at the other end of this, I say: please, Secretary of State, let us get the tone of this debate right, and move forward. The Cass report is a great thing, and we have to work with it to deliver the best outcomes for the children in our care.

Victoria Atkins: Again, I approach the Dispatch Box with humility because I know about the journey that the hon. Lady has been on, and about the debates and questions that she has brought forward, not just on behalf of the constituent that she mentions, but on the wider issue of the treatment of women in healthcare and in other parts of public life. I very much want us to view the future as a clean sheet, so that we can build services around children, rather than expecting them to slot into services for the convenience of arguments that were put forward in the past.
However, we have to acknowledge that this has been such a long and toxic debate that there will be people who want answers. I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has walked back some of his comments, but it is important that we acknowledge the toxicity, so that we can move on and achieve exactly what the hon. Lady and I, and others around the Chamber, seek. [Interruption.] Interestingly, Opposition Members are chuntering from sedentary positions. I think that we can make a real change, but a little less sniping from the sidelines and a little more constructive work is needed.

Nicholas Fletcher: I have called out this ideology locally, and here in Westminster with colleagues, at every opportunity available to me. At last, it appears that the world is waking up to this issue. Sadly, we know of at least 9,000 children who have been affected by this scandal and possibly damaged for life, so first I ask the Secretary of State whether she will establish a public inquiry into this issue.
Secondly, alongside reforms to the NHS, we must re-establish safeguarding in schools. Will the Secretary of State liaise with her Education colleagues to fix our statutory safeguarding guidance keeping children safe in education? It currently downplays the risk factor around a child identifying as trans; that must be addressed.
Finally, I believe that there are many bad actors who have peddled this nonsense, clearly knowing what they were doing while destroying our young people’s lives. If  there is any justice, those individuals should feel the full weight of the law. I hope that they are quaking in their boots. They ought to be.

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful question. I am going to deal, if I may, with his point about a public inquiry, because I know that there are some who are asking whether that would be appropriate. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that, at the moment—bearing in mind that the report landed less than a week ago—I am determined to drive forward the actions that are needed on the ground to help children and young people? We have had a four-year review into this—Dr Cass has gathered a great deal of evidence and it is a very thorough review—and so, for the moment, I want to concentrate on implementing the recommendations and on ensuring that the services are brought up to the standards that my hon. Friend rightly understands.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, of course I will liaise with my colleagues in the Department for Education. This is about helping all public sector professionals to ensure that they are acting on the evidence, as set out in the Cass review, for the sake of our children and young people.

Joanna Cherry: I warmly welcome this statement; that is not something that the Secretary of State will often hear from me. As she said, the Cass report has vindicated the concerns of many whistleblowers, including feminists and LGB activists, who warned of the consequences for children of unevidenced medical interventions and the ideological capture of the NHS. For doing so, we—because I was part of this—were defamed and hounded by organisations that many of us had formerly supported, like Stonewall, Mermaids, PinkNews, which I had to sue for defamation, and the misnamed Equality Network in Scotland. To their shame, Members of this House and Members of the other place joined in with that bullying and group-think.
While I hear what the Secretary of State has to say about a public inquiry, and about her immediate focus being on implementing the recommendations, it seems to me that we do need a public inquiry into how this institutional capture happened in our public bodies—as we all know, it is not just the NHS—because we need to make sure that never again do ideologues of any sort, or science deniers, take hold of our public institutions. When the Secretary of State is done with implementing the recommendations, or as she is doing that, will she support the movement for a public inquiry into these matters?

Victoria Atkins: I am conscious that I have just answered that, but may I put on the record my thanks and respect for everything that the hon. and learned Lady has done in this field? She has at times had to walk a very, very lonely path, and I find it extraordinary that parliamentarians—who are elected to represent the best interests of our constituents, and indeed of our countries—would find themselves under that sort of pressure for simply stating biological fact. I hope that the hon. and learned Lady will be working with me to ensure that the recommendations in the Cass review are applied not just in England but in Scotland, in Wales and in Northern Ireland.

Steve Double: I very much welcome this report and the strong statement by the Secretary of State in response to it. If there is one  thing that should be above party politics, above political ideology, and above cultural trends or virtue signalling, it is the welfare of our young people, and this report lays bare that, sadly, that is exactly what has not been happening. This ideology has not only captured part of our NHS; it is found in many of our public sector institutions. I ask the Secretary of State, who has clearly taken a strong leadership position on the matter today, whether she will ensure that the findings of this report are implemented across Government—in education, local government, social services, and in our police force—to ensure that this can never happen again?

Victoria Atkins: This report sets out the evidence, which was not there before. It has taken four long years of very hard work to gather that evidence, and I hope and expect that the health sector will implement these recommendations. I also hope we can have a conversation about our wider public space, and I was very pleased to read the article by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities over the weekend. We have to de-politicise the public space and ensure that this evidence is applied across the board for the health of all our constituents and our country.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I welcome any research, and this report moves the debate forward. My reading is that Cass says there is a toxic debate on all sides, and that there are particularly nasty and vicious people on all sides. I have had posters put outside my house with rude words on them, etc, and it has happened on all sides. That is what Cass says—that it is unhelpful.
Cass says there seems to be little evidence that large numbers of people feel either regret or success, that there is poor evidence of effectiveness, and that there needs to be more evidence on the usefulness of social transition. I read it as saying that there needs to be an awful lot more evidence, but Cass is clear that young people should not be denied access to healthcare if they are trans; in fact, they should have more healthcare and more pathways. Will the Minister agree to fund that research? We should not get evidence from just adult services. We need proper longitudinal studies that mean we have an evidence base. Will the Government support a Cass-compliant amendment to my Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill that I believe can square this circle?

Victoria Atkins: I am sorry, but I think there is a certain amount of disbelief in the Chamber. I cannot be the only one who remembers the debate on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill in January 2023 when the hon. Gentleman not only tried to shout down female Opposition colleagues but felt so exercised that he crossed the Floor of the House to sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates). I remember how Conservative Members were genuinely surprised that a Member of Parliament would think it appropriate to behave in that way when debating a subject that we are entitled to, and should feel free to, debate. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman suffered the abuse that he describes, but setting a good example starts at home. I hope he will never again behave as he did in the Chamber that  day, because that is how we sort out the toxicity of  this debate.

Douglas Ross: The Scottish Government’s response to the Cass review has been one of deafening silence. In fact, SNP Ministers have buried their heads in the sand and said nothing proactively about the review or its conclusions and recommendations. Indeed, the Scottish Conservatives’ request to have a statement in the Scottish Parliament on the Cass review has so far been refused by the SNP-Green Government, so I welcome the opportunity to speak about it here in the UK Parliament.
In her statement, the Secretary of State mentioned NHS England’s recent decision to end the routine prescription of puberty blockers to children. However, they are still available in Scotland. What discussions have there been on this issue, if any, between Scottish Government Ministers and the UK Government, or indeed between officials in NHS Scotland and NHS England?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his careful and considered question. I very much hope that the Scottish National party Government will look at the evidence very carefully and find the recommendations to their liking. It is to NHS England’s credit that it has acted so promptly, and I would hope and expect that the devolved nations, let by the Scottish National party and the Welsh Labour party, will follow with similar speed.
As I have had to say, because it is in line with the atmosphere in which clinicians are having to operate, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, brought forward by the Scottish National party Government and supported by Scottish Labour, cannot help the considered debate that we wish to have about this very complex subject, and I encourage them to look at that as part of their overall approach.

Emma Hardy: I welcome the Cass review and its recommendations. Mistakes have been made that must never happen again, but the polarised public debate that she mentions reflects badly on this House. Does the Minister agree that making jokes about trans people and trans children is cruel, cheapens the debate and moves the focus away from ensuring that all our young people get the help they need when they need it?

Victoria Atkins: True leadership is not just about being careful with the words we use. I will not recite the many words that other Labour Members have used about trans issues. They say, for example, that it is factually inaccurate to say that only women have a cervix—[Interruption.] I am not naming them, but that seems an extraordinary things for a Labour Member to say. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear their words repeated back to them, but I will resist that temptation and instead focus on the application of policy.
Trans prisoners, including those who are fully intact and have been convicted of serious sexual offences, are demanding to be held in prisons that match their chosen gender. This Government, including me and many of my predecessors as Prisons Minister, set clear rules to ensure that situations such as the Karen White case are not repeated, so it was very troubling that Opposition Members did not appear to have the same concerns when it came to the placing of a trans double rapist, Isla Bryson, in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am being  told that it is not true but, if Opposition Members want to factcheck, apparently it was the deputy leader of the Labour party who said that it does not matter.

Bill Cash: Although I would like to believe that many of these problems will be resolved by guidance and by changing the administrative rules, and things of that kind, I fear that the real problem is much deeper. It is about the manner in which, over the last generation, we have introduced legislation that has facilitated these arrangements. I am glad that the Government have passed the Online Safety Act 2023 to deal with the platforms on which a lot of this stuff has been spuriously put out by people with absolutely no moral compass.
I thank the Secretary of State for what she has said this afternoon, and for the robust and extremely effective manner in which she has said it, but please do not believe that this will be resolved just by changes to administrative rules. This is about a moral compass and telling the truth. The legislation, whether it is the Equality Act 2010, human rights law or whatever else it might be, will need to be changed.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I want to get everyone in, but we really cannot have mini-speeches. We need questions that the Secretary of State can answer briefly.

Victoria Atkins: The brevity of my answer demonstrates my respect for the observations and experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I completely agree with him, and I will enjoy working with him on this.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the Secretary of State for her very important statement. I welcome every word of it, just as I welcome the final report of the Cass review. I thank Dr Hilary Cass for her outstanding work in lifting the lid on this dangerous ideology and its impact on predominantly young LGB people, and other gender non-conforming young people.
The Secretary of State made an important point about the insinuation of gender ideology and its impact on the health service. As other Members have said, we know that gender ideology has insinuated itself into many of our public bodies and into debate in this place. Pieces of legislation are being proposed in this place that would enforce the very conditions in the Cass report, where gender non-conforming young people are denied proper psychological and psychosocial support to come to a reasonable discussion and end point. What support will the Secretary of State provide to have that conversation and to weed out this ideology elsewhere?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advocacy on this issue. I very much hope that all Members will be able to use the evidence produced in this review and report in future debates about legislation so that we can all make informed and correct decisions.

Lia Nici: Let’s be honest, Secretary of State, this excellent review exposes institutionalised grooming and abuse by so-called “professional” medical people. What is she going to do  to make sure that people pushing this from day one are, as a minimum, now going to be on the sex offenders list and taken off being able to practise as medical people?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for that. She is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), to emphasise that this is about not just the debate within the NHS, but what happens online. I know that parents of children affected by this are very aware of the online “grooming”, as they describe it, of children on social media. I do not want to trespass for the time being on the regulators—we have already had some constructive conversations with them—but the will of the House is clear that we expect the report to be followed and clinicians to act on the basis of that evidence.

Marsha de Cordova: Let me start by saying that I welcome the Cass review’s findings, which make it clear that clinical services must be led by good-quality, robust evidence and highlight the lack and the poor quality of data. We all know the important role that data plays in delivering for patients. So does the Secretary of State agree that the review of adult gender services should take into account the number of patients with mental health challenges, such as depression, anxiety, autism, self-harm, eating disorders and many others? What additional resources will be put in place for mental health provision?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful question, because she rightly lists some of the mental health conditions that both Dr Cass and professionals in this area have realised can be part of the complex needs of children and young people who are asking questions of their identity and about their path in life. On funding, the financial value of the contract last year with the Tavistock was £9.3 million, but for this financial year NHS England has committed some £17.1 million for the two new hubs for gender services. Of course, they will keep this under review as we build up the services across the country in the ways envisaged in the report.

Richard Fuller: Let me add my thanks to Dr Hilary Cass for her review. Having listened to this Secretary of State today, I am confident that young people in this situation are in safe hands as she implements the recommendations. However, I wish to ask her about accountability, because what we have seen in the NHS with previous scandals, be it the contaminated blood scandal or Mid Staffordshire, is that accountability is a little slippery. Accountability is not just about lessons being learnt; it is about people being held to account for what they have done. So will my right hon. Friend be looking at ways in which there is room for people to be struck off if found to be wrong, for managers to be sacked and, in certain circumstances, for legal action to be taken?

Victoria Atkins: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s desire for accountability. I just remind us all that some clinicians have acted in a morally exemplary way, trying to blow the whistle on practices they observe. He and I, and, I hope, others, want to ensure that clinicians who have not acted in accordance with their professional duties are held to account. As I say, ongoing conversations are taking place with the independent  regulators, but I suspect that they have very much understood the way in which the House is viewing this and the seriousness with which we view clinicians who have not abided by their professional duties in this regard.

Kim Johnson: Many of the Cass review recommendations are to be welcomed, but there has been some dangerous misinterpretation of some of the recommendations in public discourse and, crucially, in NHS England’s response to the recommendations for transitional services for 17 to 25-year-olds. So will the Minister join me in challenging the NHS specialised commissioning team on its immediate limiting of access to support for 17-year-olds, including with the cancellation of appointments for some who have waited years, and in calling on it to immediately reinstate access while it reviews next steps?

Victoria Atkins: I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I have misunderstood her question, but I think she is referring to the decision that NHS England will prevent under-18s from accessing adult gender services. A consultation has just closed and we are looking at the results of that, but I am very sensitive to the needs of young people within that 17-to-25 cohort for whom the “cliff edge”, as it has been described to me, of moving from children’s services to adult services may not be in their best interests. I promise that that is very much the focus of my work on this in the weeks ahead.

Julie Marson: My experience of speaking to my constituents on this subject has been characterised by fear—it is often the fear of mothers about their daughters, the fear of what is happening to their children and the fear of speaking out because of the group-think and the toxicity of the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Dr Cass’s extensive, evidence-based report should mark an absolute turning point, in ensuring that we spearhead our approach to this debate by putting children first and being non-ideological in all areas—across Government, in all Departments, not just the NHS, in education and in our public bodies?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend sincerely for that. Again, she articulates the concerns of many families where a teenager or young person may be suffering complex needs and are asking questions of themselves and their place in society. We must treat not just the child or young person, but the family with care and respect, trying to support them to get to the right place for the child.

Chi Onwurah: Some constituents who have contacted me see in the Cass report a vindication of their long-held views on sex and gender following years of abuse, sometimes violent. Others who have contacted me fear that the Cass review represents an attack on their very existence as trans people and fear the abuse to come. Will the Secretary of State set out that she opposes utterly the toxification and politicisation of questions of sex and gender? Will she also set out that she will collect the additional evidence that the Cass review calls for, without which there cannot be an evidence-based approach? Will she also set out that she will put in place the  resources our young people need in terms of healthcare to ensure that they receive the healthcare appropriate to them?

Victoria Atkins: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make it clear again that this report is about gathering the evidence to help support our children and young people to the best care they can have. For a very small number that may well be a medical pathway, but for the overwhelming majority we know from Dr Cass’s report that there may be other ways in which they can be best supported and looked after. I do not want anyone to walk away from this debate thinking that this is somehow a report about those adults who have made that decision of their own free will and are living their lives as freely as we all want them to—it is not. It is about the healthcare and emotional care and support that we give to young people and their families, and the professional confidence we give to clinicians to ensure that we get to the right place for each and every individual child.

Anna Firth: I welcome the Secretary of State’s powerful statement and the Cass report. However, we have to acknowledge that the report would not have been commissioned without this Government, with the support of some other parties. So many Opposition Members just stayed silent and thought the report was pretty much a waste of time, and to see the lack of any appreciation of that today is shocking and shameful.
On the timetable to enact the wider findings of the Cass report, I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said about meeting the GMC over the weekend, but there is work to be done. Secondly and really concerningly, what steps are—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am sure the hon. Lady does not mean “secondly”, because she is not making a speech. She has one question to ask, and I would be grateful if she could ask it.

Anna Firth: What are we going to do to provide emotional and psychological support for those who have already undergone this treatment with irrevocable consequences?

Victoria Atkins: My hon. Friend’s observations about Members from other parts of the Chamber and their response to this are well made, frankly. [Interruption.] Gosh, I am being told they are not true. Crikey, Opposition Members may have just opened up a Pandora’s box. On my hon. Friend’s point about supporting people who have gone through the process and are trying to detransition, she is absolutely right that they need particular care. I am actively looking into what NHS England needs to provide to look after the very complex needs that such people have.

Ben Bradshaw: Has the Secretary of State seen today’s very sad interview with Judge Victoria McCloud, Britain’s only senior transgender judge, who has been driven from her job because of anti-trans hate, particularly the trend among some politicians and opinion formers to describe being transgender as “an ideology”? The Secretary of State has used the term “ideology”, as have a number of her colleagues, during this statement. For the benefit of the House and trans people, will she clarify that she does not believe that being transgender is “an ideology”?

Victoria Atkins: I genuinely thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to re-emphasise that. When I have talked about ideology, it is the ideology influencing or making assumptions about the provision of services for any child or young person who is questioning their place, sexuality, identity or future path in life. The ideology is the one that influenced the services that Dr Cass has set out so very well. Of course, if an adult chooses to live their life as a transgender adult then they must do so freely, and, I would hope, with compassion and understanding from all of us. By the way, I have been talking about this for many years; when I was Minister for Women, I talked about this subject. We must deal with this issue in a caring and careful way, and that is what Dr Cass emphasises in her report.

Robin Millar: I welcome this statement. The Cass report highlights the area of prescribing untested and irreversible drugs as puberty blockers to young people, but in Wales the pathway for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria includes referral to gender services in England. The Cass report also warns against teachers being forced into making premature and effectively clinical decisions about affirmation, such as social transitioning, and yet that is implicit throughout the Welsh Government’s LGBTQ+ action plan and their compulsory relationships and sexuality education curriculum. Does the Secretary of State agree that these findings have relevance for the safeguarding of children in England and Wales? Does she agree that parents, teachers and health workers across England and Wales can expect politicians to take heed of these findings?

Victoria Atkins: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is always very good at exposing the differences in treatment that patients in Wales receive compared with those in England. Given that the leader of the Labour party has said that Wales is the “blueprint” for how it plans to run the NHS in England, I hope and expect that the Labour party will be true to its word and the Labour-run NHS in Wales will be announcing its immediate adoption of these recommendations, as well as the transformation to services that we in England are already undertaking.

Stella Creasy: Many of us recognise the value of the Cass report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) set out, in its call for evidence and a thoughtful approach, and its recognition that the collapse of child and adolescent mental health services has contributed to the difficulties in children accessing services. However, I stand here today with terrified constituents who are part of the backlog. I dare say that thousands of those children have been watching this debate with their families and are frightened to hear the heat, not light. The Secretary of State has a brief in front of her, so can I ask her a practical question for my constituents who do not understand what this will mean for waiting times and delays? She said that she was not putting any new money into the service but funds were being reprioritised. In practical terms, what will that mean for those young people who are trying to navigate what is happening to them, who need our support and care, not the derision of any political movement?

Victoria Atkins: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave earlier about funding. In relation to the waiting list, we have already removed the Tavistock as the single  provider of these services. We have now set up two sets of services in highly respected—world-respected—children’s hospitals, and we will add more. Again, the issue goes back to giving GPs and other practitioners the confidence to look after these children as they would if they were presenting solely with, for example, ADHD symptoms or concerns about mental health. This is about saying that this issue is one part of the patient they must treat, not isolating and siloing it in the way that has happened historically.

Alexander Stafford: Providing hormone blockers to children is wrong; encouraging and giving cross-sex hormones to children is wrong; and encouraging breast binding for children is wrong. In the future, I believe we will look back on this scandal—and it is a scandal—with incredulity about how we did this to our children, especially our girls. We should all be embarrassed that this is the situation we are in. It is not just carrying on in our hospitals and the medical profession; this sort of ideology is going on in our schools. Does the Secretary of State share my concerns and those of my constituents, who have raised the issue with me in private because they cannot raise it publicly, that a school in Rother Valley is fundraising for Mermaids, a charity that is accused of encouraging young people to transition simply because they do not confirm to gender stereotypes, even though they are too young to understand the consequences? Does the Secretary of State share my belief that Mermaids and other such charities have no place in our schools, and no place to help to hinder our children?

Victoria Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend, and I will set out the practical and important steps NHS England has already taken, which I hope other parts of the United Kingdom will follow. NHS England has banned the prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria to children under the age of 18. On the advice of Dr Cass, cross-sex hormones can be prescribed only with extreme caution for those aged 16 and older. No cross-sex hormones may be prescribed to those under 16 for gender dysphoria. There are medical caveats to that for other medical conditions, and we need to be very careful about unintended consequences, which is why this is such a complicated piece of work. We want to ensure that these drugs are prescribed to the right people, if they should be prescribed at all.
On my hon. Friend’s point about campaigning organisations, part of our collective frustration is that our public spaces have become politicised. I would say there is no space for that sort of campaign activity in any of our public institutions. I appreciate that a range of views must be represented. Young people must be helped to discover their path in life, their sexuality and all of the things that are such a wonderful part of growing up, but we have to do so in a way that is fair and rigorous, and does not give way against the evidence into the realms of ideology, which sadly we have seen in some instances.

Stephen Farry: I welcome the Cass review. Its recommendations merit proper and full consideration. Dr Cass has called for young trans people, their families and clinicians to be treated with respect and compassion. Sadly, we have not seen that today in some of the comments and heckles that have been made during the statement. Will the Secretary of  State commit to challenging the harmful culture of transphobia in the UK, which is growing, and that was challenged in 2022 when the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe placed the UK alongside Russia, Hungary and Turkey?

Victoria Atkins: If the hon. Gentleman wants to work constructively with me on ensuring that we deal with this report and the evidence in a caring and careful way, for the benefit not just of children and young people but of the wider trans community, I would welcome his support in so doing.

Zarah Sultana: Although I welcome the call from Dr Cass for all young people, including young trans people, to be
“treated with compassion and respect”,
I share concerns about important elements of the review, particularly given the context in which it was published. Last year, transphobic hate crimes hit a record high. A United Nations report noted deep concern about the increase in
“harassment, threats, and violence against LGBT people”
in the UK, and blamed the toxic debate about sexual orientation and gender identity. Will the Minister join me in condemning the rise in transphobia, in acknowledging that trans rights are human rights, and in recognising that we will only deliver high-quality healthcare that everyone deserves when we respect the rights and dignity of all?

Victoria Atkins: Not only have I tried to espouse those principles in every ministerial role that I have held, but it is the guiding light of this Government to try to ensure that we get the right healthcare and support to patients as quickly as possible. We also want to ensure that we are treating not just the condition, but the patient as a whole. As some of the complexity of the debates that we had this afternoon shows, young people are at the very heart of this. I think this is the final question, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will end with the young people that we are concerned about. [Interruption.] I am so sorry; I have one more question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The children and young people who are the focus of  this report have to be, and will be, the focus of our work going forward. We want to get the right services to the right children at the right time.

Eleanor Laing: I do not want to say that the Secretary of State could ever be wrong, but on her last judgment I have to say that the show is never over until the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has spoken.

Jim Shannon: You are most kind, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that I have now caught the Secretary of State’s eye.
May I thank the Secretary of State for her fortitude and determination, and Dr Cass for all her endeavours? Both ladies—honourable ladies, I believe—have been incredibly impressive and capable. We should be taking on board Dr Cass’s report in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I will make it my business to ensure that the Minister in Northern Ireland takes this in, so I shall be sending him a copy of the report. What help and support is available for all those patients who have been in the Tavistock since its inception? Importantly, what steps can be taken by the Government to stop this malpractice and to stop the movement of the vulnerable—some have called this tantamount to abuse—into privately funded abuse? How quickly can that protection be put in place?

Victoria Atkins: Let me offer the hon. Gentleman my sincere apologies; I am out of practice and should have known that his would be the last question.
I genuinely look forward to working with my Northern Irish counterparts on this, as we have already worked together on other matters. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about private practices. That is one area that I am working on at pace. What we do not want is to have any idea forming that somehow people can get round the strict rules that the NHS is setting the system to get these drugs to young people and children. I promise to come back and update the House when I have more news on that, but the hon. Gentleman is right to identify that issue. It shows the complexity of the matter and the real need for a very clear, detailed and principled approach to help reform our NHS so that we make it faster, simpler and fairer.

Point of Order

Gavin Newlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on a matter relating to a constituent who, while on a short break in Spain, was savagely beaten by a new partner—now an ex-partner—resulting in significant bruising all over her body, several teeth knocked out and a broken jaw. Indeed, it is possible that she is only here thanks to the intervention of five Newcastle men who incapacitated the perpetrator. My constituent has received excellent consular service, which is more than can be said of the service of the Spanish police, who I am told have closed the case without taking statements from any of the six witnesses to the attack, allowing the thug to plead not guilty. It is now a case of “He said, she said,” which, as we all know, makes it very difficult to secure a conviction. That means he may well be back in Scotland, free to harass and terrorise my constituent. This situation is unacceptable, so how best should I proceed as an MP to raise urgent casework of this sort with overseas Governments?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am afraid that there is not much that I can say, as this is not a matter for the Chair, but may I express my own sadness at what has happened? What a dreadful thing for his constituent to have to suffer. I can understand his concern on her behalf about how the matter is being dealt with. I can only advise him to write to the relevant Foreign Office Minister, who will undoubtedly take up the case. He says that the consular authorities provided a good service, which is good news. That is really the only route that I can suggest that he goes down, but he might also wish to consult the Table Office. Certainly, he has brought the matter to the attention of the  House, and the whole House will be sorry to hear  what has happened.

Safety of Rwanda  (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Consideration of Lords message
[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, HC 435, and the Government response, HC 647.]

Eleanor Laing: I can confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 1 - Introduction

Michael Tomlinson: I beg to move.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendments 3B and 3C.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 6B.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 7B.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 9 but proposes additional Amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of that amendment.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 10B.

Michael Tomlinson: Here we are, back again debating the same issues and amendments that we have already rejected. We are not quite at the point yet of completing each other’s sentences, but we are almost there. The issue before the House is whether the clearly expressed views of this House throughout the entire passage of the Bill should prevail. We simply cannot accept amendments that provide for loopholes that will perpetuate the current cycle of delays and late legal challenges to removal. We have a moral duty to stop the boats. We must bring an end to the dangerous, unnecessary, and illegal methods that are being deployed. We must protect our borders and, most importantly, save lives at sea. Our partnership with Rwanda is a key part of our strategy.
The message is absolutely clear: if a person comes to the United Kingdom illegally, they will not be able to stay. They will be detained and swiftly returned to their home country or to a safe third country—Rwanda.

Tim Farron: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Tomlinson: No, I will not give way.
On Lords amendment 1, the use of a section 19(1)(b) statement does not mean that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. There is nothing improper or unprecedented with such a statement. It does not mean that the Bill is unlawful or that the Government will necessarily lose any legal challenge. These statements have been made in the past, including in 2003 under the last Labour Government. We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our  international obligations, and we remain committed to that position. Our focus is on passing this legislation, which will deter people from entering the country dangerously and illegally.
Turning to the revised amendments on the implementation of the treaty and the role of the monitoring committee, clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force. Amendment 3B confuses the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill provisions to come into force.
As I have said, the treaty enhances the role of the monitoring committee, and the monitoring committee will ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. It was always intended for the monitoring committee to be independent. Maintaining the committee’s independence is an integral aspect of the design of the policy, and Lords amendment 3C risks disturbing that independence and impartiality. The Government will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that the necessary implementation has taken place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. That being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment.
Despite the refinements made, Lords amendment 6B is still a wrecking amendment that seeks to reverse the Bill’s intent. The Bill’s purpose is to invite Parliament to agree with the assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed. The Bill reflects the fact that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit.
The evidence that we have provided, and the commitments made by our Government and the Government of Rwanda through this internationally binding treaty, show that Rwanda is a safe country, and enable the Bill to deem Rwanda a safe country. As I am sure those who support and will vote for this amendment know, it would render the Bill utterly pointless and would not enable us to create the deterrent that we need to stop the boats and get flights off the ground.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Tomlinson: I will not. Turning to Lords amendment 7B, we know that assessing age is inherently difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. There are obvious safeguarding risks relating to adults being placed in the care system. It is crucial that we take steps to safeguard children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges that prevent the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. The amendment would result in those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the Illegal Migration Act 2023 being treated differently from those who are being removed to another country under the same Act. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Tomlinson: I will not; I will make some progress. Lords amendment 9 undermines provisions in existing legislation and is completely unnecessary. It is vital that the Government take steps to reduce or remove incentives for individuals to enter the country illegally. These illegal practices pose an exceptional threat to public order, risk lives and place unprecedented pressure on public services.
As I have set out, under article 13 of the treaty, the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided relating to any special needs that an individual may have as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery. Rwanda will take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated. To that end, the Government have tabled amendment (a) in lieu, which requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of the legislation as it relates to modern slavery and human trafficking provisions. With that in mind, I invite the House to reject Lords amendment 9 and agree with the amendment in lieu.
On Lords amendment 10B, as I have set out, the Government recognise our commitment and responsibility to combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that once the UK special forces and Afghan relocations and assistance policy review has concluded, the Government will revisit how the Illegal Migration Act, and provision for removal under existing legislation, will apply to those who are eligible to stay as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention that they deserve. This is a commitment that both Lord Sharpe and I have made on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
This, the elected House, has voted to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading, and voted down each of the Lords amendments. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to stand with the Government in upholding the will of the House of Commons, and to support the Government motions.

Eleanor Laing: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: It is just over two years to the day since the Rwanda scheme was first announced from the Government Dispatch Box, so it would be remiss of us not to take stock of progress to date. Well, hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been sent to the Rwandan Government; civil servants, courts, parliamentarians and journalists have spent countless hours, days and weeks discussing and writing about the scheme; and not one, not two, but three Home Secretaries have flown down to Kigali. But apart from that, there is not a great deal to report. The boats have kept coming, the backlog has kept growing, and the people smugglers are still laughing all the way to the bank. We have had two years of headline-chasing gimmicks; two years of pursuing a policy that is fundamentally unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful; two years of flogging this dead horse.
I am an inveterate optimist, so I truly believe that one day Government Members will come to understand that hard graft and common sense are always more effective than the sugar rush of a tabloid front page, and  they will come to accept that they should have adopted Labour’s comprehensive plan to restore order to our border by redirecting the vast amounts of money set aside for the Rwandan Government into a new cross-border police unit, and a new security partnership with Europol to smash the criminal gangs upstream.
Analysis conducted by the National Audit Office has revealed that if the Government manage to send 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda, which is just 0.5% of the 60,000 people earmarked for the scheme, it will cost the British taxpayer a truly staggering £2m per person. It is crystal clear that the scheme is doomed to fail on its own terms because people who are prepared to risk life and limb crossing continents will not be deterred by a 0.5% chance of being sent to Rwanda.
The mind-boggling costs of the scheme are quite difficult to grasp, so I have done a bit of homework—a bit of research into what else we could get for £2 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who is not in his place, got the ball rolling during our last debate on the Bill by pointing out that £2 million will get someone five trips to outer space on the Virgin Galactic spacecraft—Madam Deputy Speaker, you look impressed, and suitably so. I have calculated that someone could live for three decades on one of the world’s most expensive cruise liners. They could charter, for a year, the Lady M yacht, which is, of course, the yacht that belongs to the “noble” Baroness Mone—it is her vessel of choice, as some Government Members may be aware—or they could even fly the Prime Minister’s favoured helicopter to Australia and back.
Speaking of the Prime Minister, I noticed that during the Easter recess, he found time to offer his services as a financial adviser to small businesses via Zoom. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have concerns about a guy who is happy to pump billions of pounds into a failing fiasco like this Rwanda scheme offering his services as a financial adviser to unsuspecting members of the public. Let us hope that the Financial Conduct Authority will intervene as a matter of urgency.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman is proving most entertaining, but as this is consideration of Lords amendments, will he get on to dealing with the amendments? I want him to be in order!

Eleanor Laing: Order. If the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) was not in order, I would not have allowed him to speak. He has been drawing some very interesting facts to the attention of the House. I, for one, am likely to explore some of them—but not the yacht.

Stephen Kinnock: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always enjoy taking interventions from a fellow Welshman, but I feel that the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) was well and truly put in his place by your riposte.

Barry Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend take an intervention from a non-fellow Scotsman?

Stephen Kinnock: I will.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure that my hon. Friend has, like me, marvelled at the Government’s ability to legislate for Rwanda to be a safe country—Lords amendment 2 addressed that. Will he join me in urging the Government to use their amazing power to legislate to ensure that carbon dioxide emissions no longer cause global warming, and sugar, fat and alcohol no longer damage human health?

Stephen Kinnock: I am sure that those on the Government Benches would be delighted to oblige. Perhaps we could also legislate to say that the sky is green and the grass is blue, or that the Welsh rugby team actually won the last Six Nations—I would love to pass a law to secure that objective.
Let us be clear: not one of the amendments before us prevents flights to Rwanda taking off. On the contrary, they simply seek to put in the Bill what Ministers have previously promised—namely, they would ensure that the Bill was lawful, that the Government would protect the most vulnerable, and that we would stand by those brave Afghans who supported military efforts.
Let me address each amendment directly. I will focus first on Lords amendment 10B, in the name of the noble Lord Browne. We have spoken a lot about the unworkability and unaffordability of this policy, but we should also talk about the unethical and frankly un-British nature of deporting halfway across the world to Rwanda those Afghans who have supported Britain’s defence and diplomatic efforts. That is not Operation Warm Welcome; it is operation cold shoulder. We should have seen it coming, given that for an entire year the Prime Minister halted flights from neighbouring Pakistan for Afghans who had been granted resettlement rights in the UK under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and restarted them only when the Pakistani Government threatened to send those Afghans back across the border to meet their fate at the hands of the Taliban. We owe a debt of honour to the Afghans who were loyal to Britain and put their life on the line, and of course, our moral duty is most strongly felt by British armed forces personnel who worked alongside them.
In fact, this weekend, 13 senior military figures signed a letter to The Sunday Telegraph warning that
“‘any brave men and women who have fought alongside our armed forces or served the UK Government overseas’ must be exempt from removal to Rwanda.”
The signatories included former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, a former Secretary-General of NATO and a former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. They warn that if this exemption is not granted, it will do
“grave damage to our ability to recruit local allies in future military operations”,
and explain that they have
“seen first-hand the enormous courage and dedication shown by those who have fought alongside our Armed Forces and served British interests abroad, often at huge personal risk, and we take personally Britain’s obligation to honour the debt we owe to that cohort.”
Those are powerful words indeed. I urge Government Members to join us in supporting Lords amendment 10B, which seeks to prevent that travesty.

Kevin Foster: As the shadow Minister and I know, the key issue is not that ARAP people are coming via small boats, but the unbunging of the resettlement scheme. How many spaces does he envisage we will need to ensure are available for resettlement under that scheme?

Stephen Kinnock: A number of people who served the British defence, development and diplomatic effort have been identified for resettlement, so they should be resettled in the United Kingdom. Let us get that bit of the scheme unblocked before we get into speculation about the quantum. The key point is that they have already been accepted into the resettlement programmes, but are being left high and dry in Pakistan.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend was accused of levity earlier. This House has so many things to discuss. There are good, sensible and workable policies to deal with in relation to migration, as he and I know, but this one—the Rwanda scheme—reminds me of the Monty Python dead parrot sketch, which he is probably too young to remember. The scheme is a dead parrot; the sooner the Government wake up to the fact that it is dead, the better.

Stephen Kinnock: My hon. Friend is right that so many practical, pragmatic and sensible measures could be taken to deal with the crisis in the channel—the Tory small boats chaos—but instead of focusing on those sensible and pragmatic measures, we are dealing with this white elephant of a programme that will never get anywhere and is costing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and absorbing huge amounts of our time. I absolutely agree with him on that.
Lords amendment 9, in the name of the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss, is also based on a moral imperative, as it would prevent the removal of potential victims of modern slavery to Rwanda until the individual’s process under the national referral mechanism is complete. It should go without saying that modern slavery victims should not be sent to Rwanda, and we are disappointed that the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu is a profoundly unserious attempt to reassure the House—not least because we have been here before and know that such promised reports are rarely worth the paper they are written on.
We on the Labour Benches are also deeply concerned about unaccompanied children being inadvertently sent to Rwanda. We therefore support the noble Baroness Lister’s amendment 7B, which recognises the Government’s reasoning for rejecting her previous amendment by this time proposing that an age-disputed person who is appealing their decision can be removed to Rwanda only if a local authority has agreed and stated that that person is not a child.
The other Lords amendments all relate to the rule of law, and we support them. They simply articulate principles that Ministers have said they agree with from the Dispatch Box. The simple question is this: if Ministers believe that Rwanda is a safe country, why are the Government refusing to support those amendments? They say that the Bill abides by international law, so why not make that clear on the face of it? They say that Rwanda is  capable of meeting its obligations under international law, so let us see the evidence and agree a trust-but-verify mechanism, as set out in the amendments.

Tahir Ali: Does my hon. Friend agree that although the Bill is inhumane, costly and unworkable—despite the best efforts to amend it—the Tories seem resolved to pursue it rather than getting to grips with our broken asylum system? It is just another indication to the country that this Government are unfit to govern.

Stephen Kinnock: There is a clear choice between the common sense, hard graft and positive international co-operation set out in Labour’s plan to deal with this issue, and the headline-chasing gimmicks and empty gestures that are symbolised by the Rwanda policy. Politics is about choices; the Government have taken their choice and we have taken ours.
In that spirit, Lords amendment 1B is a Labour Front-Bench amendment that places a responsibility on the Government to have due regard for its current obligations under domestic and international law. Lords amendments 3B and 3C, in the name of the noble Lord Hope, together state that Rwanda may be considered a safe country only if and when the measures set out in the Rwanda treaty have been fully implemented and the monitoring committee has established that that is the case. The Government claim that the measures in the treaty address concerns in the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous ruling, so there is absolutely no reason for Ministers to refuse to accept Lord Hope’s amendments.
Finally, Lords amendment 6B, in the name of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti, allows Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe on a case-by-case basis. Given that the Government have accepted that some appeals will be allowed, we see no reason for them to reject this amendment.
I hope that colleagues from across the House will join Labour in voting for all the amendments. Of course, the amendment are no more than an exercise in damage limitation; the fundamental problem is that this hare-brained Rwanda policy is breaking all records for being the most unworkable and worst value for money policy in the history of the Home Office. But there is an alternative. In addition to our policy to go after the criminal smuggler gangs, we will deliver our backlog clearance plan to get asylum seekers out of expensive asylum hotels by surging decision makers and caseworkers to the Home Office, and by creating a new returns and enforcement unit with 1,000 dedicated staff focused on the faster removal of those with no right to be here, including failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals.
The Government are failing on all fronts. Despite their misleading boasts about progress, the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), admitted today that there are still almost 300 asylum hotels in operation. They are returning 44% fewer failed asylum seekers compared with 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, and 27% fewer foreign criminals. The number of small boat crossings has gone up again year on year—January to March figures—and the Government have no plan for the 99% who cannot be sent to Rwanda. We need Labour’s plans to smash the criminal smuggler gangs, save lives in the channel and strengthen our border security.  We need Labour’s plans for faster processing, the end of hotel use and the removal of people who have no right to stay in the UK, and we need a Labour Government to deliver a firm, fair and well-managed asylum system that works for Britain.

Bill Cash: I do not really feel that there is anything terribly useful I can say at this stage—I have heard all this before. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who speaks for the Opposition, is simply repeating what he has said before. Not only that; it is perfectly apparent that these amendments are just wrecking amendments, and the hon. Gentleman has not even addressed the arguments about international law. He knows perfectly well—because he cannot answer my questions on this issue—that we have a dualist system, and if we decide to legislate in our own Parliament, the courts themselves will implement that legislation.
The real point is this: let us get this Bill done, and let us get the House of Lords to calm down a bit. At the same time, let us wait for what is inevitably going to be another claim and then see the judgment of the Supreme Court on the wording of this Bill, provided that it is clear and unambiguous. That is all I need to say. I may come back again, however, if the Lords insist again on these ridiculous amendments.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman.

Alison Thewliss: Here we are again, debating this outrageous and unworkable Bill. We are no further forward, and the Government will fail to get any further forward, because the Bill is a complete waste of time and money. It is a ruse to get tabloid headlines, and at this stage I am not even sure whether the Government have any intention that this plan will work at all, given the incompetence they have shown so far. They are scrabbling around this week, trying to find airlines, because not one single responsible air carrier wants to be associated with the Government’s state-sponsored people trafficking plans. They have been trying to find other countries that they can try to send people to; Armenia, the Ivory Coast, Costa Rica and Botswana might be interested, but far more countries rather sensibly told the Government to go and get raffled.
I am not convinced that even Rwanda believes this plan will work or that people will be sent, because it has gone and sold off the housing that it built—that the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), so admired. If the Government do send people, there will not even be the facilities to put them in, unless they intend to stack them high as they often do in hotels in this country, treating people as human cargo that they can so easily dispose of. It is absolutely despicable.
So far, the Government have sent Home Secretaries and civil servants. Even the Joint Committee on Human Rights has gone to Rwanda, along with some hand-picked journalists, but no asylum seekers—nor is there much prospect of them going. While all this has been going on, dozens of Rwandans have submitted asylum claims here in the UK, and there is still concern about Rwanda’s sponsoring of the M23 rebels, who are engaged in conflict with their neighbours, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, last month wounding UN peacekeepers  in the DRC; the group controls roads and mining sites in that country, and has displaced 1.7 million people. In The Guardian last week, Vava Tampa questioned international support for the Kagame regime, saying:
“The UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are clear that without Rwanda’s backing, the M23 couldn’t have killed, raped, tortured and displaced as many as it has.”
I ask the Government why they want to pursue deals with such a regime—it is quite worrying.
I turn to the Lords amendments, which I will go through in turn. Lords amendment 1 asks that the Government have due regard for “domestic and international law”—that should be a basic element of any legislation that this House wishes to pass. The amendment slightly waters down the Lords’ previous amendment about
“maintaining full compliance with domestic and international law”,
but clearly, even having due regard for domestic and international law is too much for this Government. That includes obligations like the European convention on human rights, which is tied up with the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlements in this country, and international laws such as the refugee convention, the UN convention against torture and the UN covenant on civil and political rights. Why would the Government not want to abide by those international agreements?

Patrick Grady: On that point, if the UK Government think they can just ignore all the international commitments to which they are already signed up—including ones that they helped to found, such as the ECHR—how on earth can they then turn around to other countries that might be breaching their obligations under international law and say that they should comply with those treaties?

Alison Thewliss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hypocrisy goes even further than that: this Government expect Rwanda to uphold all of its agreements and laws internationally and domestically, while specifically setting out to breach their own laws and obligations through this legislation. It is absolutely ludicrous.
Lords amendments 3B and 3C state that Rwanda
“will be a safe country when the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”
That question of how long those arrangements continue to be implemented is just as critical as whether Rwanda implements the measures we have just discussed, because through this legislation, the Government are stating that Rwanda is safe forever—in perpetuity. Nobody can say that of any country in the world at any point, so it is really quite bizarre to legislate specifically that Rwanda, uniquely, is safe forever and ever.
It is quite reasonable of the Lords to say,
“The Rwanda Treaty will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”
There should be a check on that. The Government should not fear that; if they truly and deeply believe that the agreement will be adhered to, there is surely no harm in scrutinising it. The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has said that the treaty is
“unlikely to result in fundamental change in the short term”,
and the UK Supreme Court pointed out in paragraph 87 of its judgment that Rwanda refouled at least six people while the treaty was under negotiation. If that does not raise alarm bells with the Government about Rwanda’s ability to adhere to the treaty, I do not think anything will.
Lords amendment 6B deals with domestic law. It is not about international courts, foreign courts and foreign judges—as if that were a bad thing, and as if we do not send people to sit on those courts ourselves—but the integrity of our own courts and tribunals, of the UK-based judges and decision makers who the Home Office employs to do their job and who this legislation undermines. The amendment says that
“Section 2 does not prevent…the Secretary of State or an immigration officer from deciding…whether the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country for the person in question or for a group of persons to which that person belongs”.
That is quite reasonable: we should look at the evidence before coming to decisions. The amendment asks that the courts and tribunals be able to do their job, not to ignore the evidence or, as others have described, to engage in a legal fantasy where they cannot look at the evidence—cannot see it, cannot hear it, and cannot speak out about what they know to be true—because that is quite unreasonable.

Bill Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Thewliss: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that our own domestic judges should not be allowed to make decisions on these issues, I would be very interested to hear his point.

Bill Cash: I was going to point out that section 57 of the Immigration Act 2023, to which the hon. Lady refers, makes the perfectly reasonable point that the courts must take account of the facts. That is the key question, and I did not hear her say that; it is something that is indisputable and, in my opinion, unassailable. If there were a question of fact regarding age or any other matter that falls within the framework of this amendment, the courts should surely be entitled to deal with those facts, but not to deal with the questions to which the hon. Lady has just referred.

Alison Thewliss: This legislation inhibits the ability to look at facts, and I think that is quite a dangerous road to go down. I do not think that that is really what the Government ought to be doing in any circumstance. No matter how much they may wish their will upon the courts, they should not be doing this in legislation. It is completely wrong.
Lords amendment 7B, on the age assessment of unaccompanied children, again asks quite reasonably that a relevant authority—a local authority—should have an expert carry out an age assessment on people whom they consider to be children. The Children’s Society has repeatedly said that it sees unaccompanied children being incorrectly assessed by immigration officials to be adults on arrival in the UK, so I think calling for a proper assessment is perfectly reasonable, rather than sending children off to Rwanda and then trying to retrieve them later. The harm that that could cause is really quite significant.
On the Government’s own figures, 485 children were wrongly assessed to be adults in the first six months of 2023. The Home Office gets this wrong quite regularly. The Helen Bamber Foundation has found that, over an 18-month period, 1,300 children were wrongly assessed to be adults, the majority being incorrectly assessed. So the Government really need to admit that they do get this wrong, and that they should not be sending children to Rwanda and then trying to retrieve them at some later stage, if—oops—somehow they got it wrong. Do it properly, and do the assessment at the beginning, rather than causing young people who have already suffered a huge amount of trauma yet more pain.
Moving to the insistence by the Lords that its amendment 9, on the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, be considered again, this is again hugely significant. This goes against our obligations on human trafficking, and we should not have a Government sending away people who have been trafficked with a significant risk that they may be re-trafficked and go through yet further trauma, with the impact that this will have on their physical and mental health and on their safety. That is something the Government really ought to be considering. Why would they not want to consider the risks of people who have been trafficked?
The Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre, led by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, has done significant work on this, and I would ask the House to consider its evidence about the breach of our obligations that the Government are embarking on. I think it is absolutely wrong that they should seek to do this to people who have already been through so much.

Andrew Slaughter: Those are good points because vulnerable people are already being targeted by the Government, if on a voluntary basis. I recently had a young man in my constituency, with severe health problems, whom the Home Office has tried to persuade to go voluntarily to Rwanda, and it was severely traumatising for him. For somebody who has suffered previously in coming to the UK and in the experience they have had in their home country, to then have that degree of what they perceive as pressure—and possibly bribery as well, in a sense—is extremely traumatising. If this is the way the Government are going, these amendments are essential.

Alison Thewliss: Having met many constituents and other people who have been victims, as the hon. Member sets out, I know this is devastating for them, when it is already difficult enough to escape from their traffickers, and it is already difficult enough to speak out about this and have their case believed by anybody.
Article 13 of the Rwanda treaty, which will allow the UK to never conclusively determine whether a potential victim of modern slavery is even a victim, would put the UK in breach of its obligations, under article 4 of the ECHR and article 10 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, to identify and assist potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Tying this up with the immigration system in the way the Government have done again undermines people’s rights and undermines our obligations as the UK. I absolutely pay tribute to the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre  for the evidence it has sent to Members. If it is in their inbox, they should please read it before they vote on this Bill, particularly on this amendment.
Lastly, on the exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK overseas, it remains the case that many Afghans have come here on small boats because the UK Government schemes have failed. They have failed to protect people, and they have failed to bring in people who served alongside British forces in Afghanistan. They are people who put their trust in the UK to protect them and their families. They put their trust in the UK-US project in Afghanistan, and that trust has been thoroughly breached.
I regularly get emails from people who feel as though they have been deeply let down by the UK Government. That trust has gone, but putting this exemption in the Bill would at least give some prospect of there being some degree of trust in the future. If I was in some country that the UK became involved in, the last thing I would want to do is to get involved with UK forces, because as soon as the UK ships out, it is, “You’re on your own—too bad, tough.” It is a death sentence for the people who put themselves forward to help and support UK objectives overseas, and the way in which this Government have treated those people and their families is disgraceful.
As I have said many times before in this place, during the fall of Afghanistan I had many families living in my constituency who had relatives there, and very few of them ever got out. I do not know what happened to them. I do not know if they are dead or alive, and some of their families may not even know that either, but they have been let down by this UK Government. The schemes the Minister talked about have failed because they are not bringing people to safety. They have failed on the terms that were promised. I seriously doubt at this stage whether they will ever meet the number of people who were supposed to come over and get safety here. At the very least, the Government could have such a recognition in this Bill. At the very least, they could accept an amendment such as this one because they must know that, because Afghans are coming in small boats, their schemes and their supposedly safe and legal routes have failed.
I am not convinced that this Bill will be any kind of deterrent. Almost 3,500 people have crossed in small boats this year so far, and it has not deterred a single solitary one of them. However, what this has done is to make it incredibly difficult for the people who are now considered inadmissible to the system. I ask the Minister: what is going to happen to them? We know that the very small—the tiniest—proportion of people sent to Rwanda, if the Government even end up sending any, will be the tip of a massive iceberg of people who are now just swimming around in the system with no rights.
I have constituents coming to my surgeries who say that they are waiting. They cannot be dealt with and have their asylum claim processed, because this Government have deemed that they are inadmissible. What happens to them? Where do they live, and how do they continue to exist in this country if the Government will not process their applications and will not listen to their  claims? That may have been through human trafficking or modern slavery, they may be people who have been victims of torture or—

Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Alison Thewliss: I am coming to the end of my remarks.
The Government will not even listen to these people’s stories, so what will happen to them and where will they live? This Government seem to have no consideration for the trauma people have gone through, and now they are leaving them in immigration limbo forever in this ridiculous, expensive and unworkable system. The asylum system is broken, and we know who broke it. We know that an independent Scotland would treat people far more humanely than this Government ever will.

David Simmonds: I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out in detail the changes and amendments the Government have made, both on the amendment paper and in their approach, in response to the concerns raised and points made by many in the earlier stages of this legislation. I will address the points made about Lords amendments 1B and 7B, and briefly touch on a couple of other points that have arisen in the debate and that, certainly from my experience in the world of local government, continue to have a relevance and will need to be addressed in due course if this is going to take effect in the way that we wish it to.
I am a great enthusiast for the European convention on human rights, and I think it is important to acknowledge in the context of this debate that, since this House previously considered and debated this particular piece of legislation, there has been a further development in respect of rule 39 interim orders. In fact, the various bodies concerned with the operation of that convention, including the Court, have recognised the concerns caused to the UK Government and other member states of the ECHR by the way in which those judgments had been handed down. I have confirmed that they will be updating their procedures to ensure operation of such orders will be different in a way that reflects the concerns expressed by many in this House. I see that as evidence that the ECHR remains a living document and also that the concerns the UK Government have expressed are being taken seriously.
Many Members will have been slightly alarmed by the recent judgment handed down in respect of environmental legislation, and I note that British judge Tim Eicke, whose dissenting commentary on that judgment has been publicised widely, set out in detail why many of the issues raised by Members of this House in respect of this particular piece of legislation were also relevant in that context—the risk of perceived overreach of developing a living document to the point where it went beyond the level of consent which the original contracting parties had in mind and that that remained something that the court needed to be alive to. I am very conscious that, because of the way the convention operates in practice, it should be an accountable process—accountable to the Parliamentary Assembly, to the Congress, to the Council of Ministers, and ultimately to the member states.

Patrick Grady: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is helpful for the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) and various others on his Benches to continually refer to the European Court of Human Rights as a foreign court?

David Simmonds: I know the Prime Minister has made the point that, given that the court is based in Strasbourg, certainly in a technical sense it can be described as that, but from my perspective, having served on the Congress, I am very much aware that it is a court of which the UK, partly through its role in the creation of the treaty of London which set up the convention in the first place, has always been an enormous supporter. We need to continue to play a part in ensuring it develops in a way in which we would wish to see it develop, through the input that Members of this House among others have through the Parliamentary Assembly and the Council of Ministers and that other parts of the British political family have through bodies such as the Congress.

Edward Leigh: I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I am not aware that I am a foreigner, but it has many difficulties and we are missing the essential point. For what it is worth, I support this Bill, but I am concerned that, in the absence of these people who land here being detained, if they are threatened with being deported to Rwanda at some stage in the future, they are simply going to bugger off into the community.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means that they might disappear into the community. That phrase would be preferable.

Edward Leigh: I was using rather colourful phraseology just to make my point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I take my ticking off.

Eleanor Laing: I will forgive the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion: they will disappear into the community. I call Mr Simmonds.

David Simmonds: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting that in a way that I am sure many of our constituents would choose to highlight it as well.
To finish the point around the convention itself and amendment 1B, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, when we cannot be certain of a future potential legal challenge it is appropriate that the statement is made as it has been made in respect of this. However, it remains my view, and I think the view of many others, that we have many channels of influence, both diplomatic and political, and that this is a living convention. We know that it is embedded in many different parts of our constitution—not just the Good Friday agreement, but our withdrawal agreement from the European Union—and therefore our adherence to it remains incredibly important. But because it is a living document it is able to flex and evolve, to recognise that the world we see today—the world of asylum and the international context—is different from the world when the treaty of London was first very strongly championed by Winston Churchill in the  1950s. Therefore, I am very much persuaded that the Minister is correct in the way he seeks to reject these amendments while also acknowledging the spirit and tone behind them.
I would like to address some of the issues that arise in amendment 7B. I am again persuaded by what the Minister has said about this, but there is a long-standing issue with the way unaccompanied children are treated. The Children Act 1989, which set up the legal framework, sets out in some detail that a child who is not accompanied by a person who has parental responsibility for them by operation of law becomes the responsibility of a local authority. Whether or not that local authority goes through any process at all to bring that child into the care system formally, for example by seeking a care order, it remains the responsibility of the local authority where that child arises to take care of them. If they return later on in early adulthood and are able to make a case that they had been present in that local authority area as a child, they are also entitled to care-leaving responsibilities from that local authority under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.
That is significant because it sets up a potential conflict between the impact of immigration legislation and the impact of Department for Education and Children Act legislation. We know this has been an issue; there is at least one other Member who represents the same local authority, the London Borough of Hillingdon, which sits in a substantial part of my constituency, and where Heathrow airport means that it has had very large numbers of unaccompanied children coming in over the years and has been responsible for carrying out age assessments, which have often been challenged by those young people and their advocates in a way that can result both in judicial reviews going one way or another, with significant cost implications to the public purse, and safeguarding risks both to children and others they might be with where those may arise.
I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that when pressing the point that the Home Office remains the decision maker as to whether a person is a child or not, and that as far as the law is concerned it is a Merton-compliant age assessment that is the gold standard for determining whether a young person is an adult. While it has been widely suggested that we could use scientific methods such as X-rays, the fact remains that those provide a very wide age range for a young person, which for the purposes of determining whether they were just under or just over 18—the relevant issue for the Children Act responsibilities—is useless. That is why the Merton-compliant age assessment process is so important.
Therefore, although I support the Minister’s view that we need to reject that amendment, we do need to ensure that the process we have in place does not put local authorities in an impossible position, where they are judicially reviewed for their failure to provide services that they are obliged to provide under the Children Act or the leaving care Act to an individual who has been removed or subject to other immigration control by a decision of the Home Office, because we could certainly open up the prospect of what are, in effect, proxy judicial reviews to challenge the Government’s immigration position by using the Children Act or the leaving care Act.
I want to address two other points that arise, one in respect directly of the amendments and the other in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about what in practice happens to people. It is very welcome that the Government have brought forward what they have to say about the treatment of victims of modern slavery. Many of us will have had individuals in our constituencies who have been affected by that and will know of the impact it has on our local public services, our police forces and our local and housing authorities in identifying people and providing appropriate support, but we are also keen to ensure that, given the progress we have made in this House on that issue, we do not fall back through the impact of other legislation. We will be looking closely to ensure that the report that is proposed as an alternative to the Lords amendment on that will work in practice as well as the Minister has set out.
Finally, a number of Members have raised the point about what happens in practice. Many of us will be conscious that this has a very significant impact on local authorities, and this goes back to the National Assistance Act 1948, which states that a local authority must provide support to someone within its area who is destitute, regardless of any other considerations about their status. In practice, that is the reason why local authorities will be required to step in and provide emergency temporary accommodation to families with children, in particular where their asylum claim has been refused but they remain here in the United Kingdom.
While the local authority will never be housing those people in social housing, because those individuals have no entitlement to it, they will be accommodated in hotels, hostels and other types of accommodation, which in turn creates additional housing pressure locally. It is incredibly important that we make sure, as the Government have set out, that this system not just works well at making decisions early on, but ensures there are effective processes so that those who should not be in the United Kingdom are removed, in order that that accommodation and those other services are available for those entitled to be here.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. It will be obvious to the House that we have just over an hour left for the remainder of this debate. I hope that we do not have to have a time limit, but if speeches are about seven minutes or so, everyone will have an opportunity to make their points. Speeches so far have not been too long—they have been perfectly reasonable—but I would like to keep to around seven minutes each, please.

Diana R. Johnson: We are now on the final stages of the legislative journey of the Rwanda scheme announced two years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said from the Front Bench. What we do know is that £370 million is already committed to the Rwanda scheme, no individuals have yet been sent to Rwanda, and the Rwandan Government reportedly want to pause the scheme after the first tranche of removals. The question of how this policy will meet the Government’s objective of deterring small boat crossings remains pertinent, especially because, as we have heard, a record number of individuals have made the dangerous channel crossing in the first three months of this year.
I will turn to each of the Lords amendments, but I also say to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is not in his place, that when I went along to the other place to hear the debate on the Bill, I was impressed by the debate and the points being raised. To say that the House of Lords needs to calm down a bit and that these are ridiculous amendments is doing a huge disservice to what the revising Chamber can provide for this part of Parliament. When the House of Lords thinks we have made mistakes and that things need to be looked at again, it gives us the opportunity to do that.
Lords amendment 1B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 1. The original would have added a requirement to maintain full compliance with domestic and international law. Lords amendment 1B, which the other place has proposed in lieu, sets out a requirement to have
“due regard for domestic and international law.”
In moving Lords amendment 1B on 20 March, Lord Coaker said:
“We have put this forward because the Bill that your Lordships are discussing now explicitly disapplies aspects of domestic law and disapplies aspects of international law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 213.]
As I made plain in the previous debate on Lords amendments, if the Government are so confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with domestic and international law, they should have no objection to this amendment.
Lords amendments 3B and 3C, which relate to treaty implementation and monitoring committees, are modified versions of the original Lords amendments 2 and 3 respectively. Lords amendment 3B, like the original Lords amendment 2, states that Rwanda
“will be a safe country when, and so long as, the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”
The wording has changed slightly. There is no longer a reference to the arrangements in the treaty being “adhered to in practice”, but the effect is the same. Lords amendment 3C, like the original Lords amendment 3, sets out what full implementation should look like and would give the independent monitoring committee a significant role. Unlike the original Lords amendment, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the monitoring committee every three months. Instead, Lords amendment 3C states that the treaty
“will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”
In moving Lords amendment 3C, Lord Hope of Craighead said that it was an attempt to respond to a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in the Commons debate on 18 March. He said that
“my Amendment 3C in lieu does my best to make it clear that the authority lies with Parliament and not with the committee.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 227.]
The Home Affairs Committee has argued that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity to debate the treaty prior to ratification, in the light of how critical its implementation is to the Rwanda policy. Given that this opportunity to scrutinise the treaty was denied, Lords amendment 3B would at least provide some reassurance to Members that its provisions will be implemented and applicable to anyone relocated to  Rwanda. Lords amendment 3C would enable Parliament to review the treaty’s implementation and respond to facts on the ground if they change.
These Lords amendments speak to the practicalities of implementing the Rwanda policy and how, sadly, too often the Government have sought to skate over them. Take the airline issue. In order for this policy to function, the Government must be able to transport people to Rwanda, yet Ministers have still not confirmed that they have secured an airline, with Rwanda’s state-owned airline reportedly declining a request to use its planes. Then there is the issue of where migrants will live if they are sent to Rwanda. Recent reports suggest that the majority of homes on a new Rwandan housing estate initially earmarked for migrants relocated from the UK have been sold to local buyers. Those are not moot points; they are the kinds of practical details that will determine whether the scheme works, and works safely. In the absence of prior scrutiny of the treaty, the House of Commons must be allowed to assess its implementation and act on the findings.
Lords amendment 6B relates to legal challenge. It is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 6 and, like the original, it would delete clause 4 of the Bill, allowing much wider grounds for legal challenge. Like the original amendment, it states that a court or tribunal may prevent or delay the removal of a person to Rwanda, but unlike the original, it adds
“providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”
The Home Affairs Committee has always recognised that the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge is a necessary part of an effective and fair asylum system. That is why the amendment has significant merit.
Lords amendment 7B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 7. The original amendment would have disapplied section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in its entirety, meaning that people claiming to be children could appeal against a decision that they are over 18. Lords amendment 7B instead would insert a new subsection into section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. In moving Lords amendment 7B, Baroness Lister explained:
“This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 252.]
During its channel crossings inquiry, the Home Affairs Committee heard examples of safeguarding processes failing across various parts of the asylum system, including cases of children being mistaken for adults. That is why I believe the Government must look again at this amendment.
Lords amendment 9 on modern slavery would add a new clause to the Bill to create an exception relating to the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The new clause states:
“A person with a positive reasonable grounds decision from the National Referral Mechanism…must not be removed from the United Kingdom on the basis of the Rwanda Treaty until a conclusive grounds decision has been made.”
It also states:
“A person with a positive conclusive grounds decision…must not be removed…without a decision-maker considering whether such removal would negatively affect the physical health, mental health or safety of that person”.
The Government have proposed amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 9. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of the Act
“as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty”.
The Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on human trafficking expresses our concern that the Government are prioritising irregular migration issues at the expense of tackling human trafficking. Human trafficking is not an immigration offence; it is an exploitation offence, and the two must not be conflated. Lords amendment 9 would provide a vital safeguard for victims of human trafficking, and I hope the Government will look at that.
Finally, Lords amendment 10B is a modified version of Lords amendment 10. Like the original amendment, it would provide an exemption for people who supported our armed forces overseas or who have otherwise been agents or allies of the UK overseas. Lords amendment 10B includes a new subsection, which states:
“A person seeking to rely upon the exemption…must give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records”.
In moving Lords amendment 10B, Lord Browne of Ladyton said:
“we are told that men who braved death, courted injury and are forced into exile as a result of assisting our Armed Forces in fighting the Taliban are to be punished for arriving here by irregular routes—even where, owing to wrongful refusals on our part or possible malfeasance on the part of the Special Forces, they have been compelled to take these routes in the first place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 254.]
We know that families from Afghanistan who helped our armed forces and subsequently fled to Pakistan are at imminent risk of deportation back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. That is despite ministerial reassurances that a route for eligible separated Afghan families to come to the UK would be established.
It seems to me—and to many others—that the UK has a moral duty to offer sanctuary to those brave Afghans who put their life on the line to support our troops and now face persecution as a consequence. The idea that we would attempt to outsource this duty is shameful. The Lords amendments before us would go some way to providing safeguards and assurances that the UK will uphold its moral and legal obligations in the implementation of the Rwanda policy.

Robert Buckland: I will try to beat the extraordinary record of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who spoke for a princely two minutes. I am grateful to him for setting that new record—his personal best, I think. I will deal with the amendments in turn, but first return to the theme of clause 1, which I have previously warmed to, and which I think is an abomination. It is exactly the worst sort of legislative drafting, and we should be discouraging it. At best, it is declaratory legislation, which is never helpful, and at worst it sets up all sorts of potential legal arguments.  The attempt by the Lords to amend it probably makes the situation even worse, which is why I will not support Lords amendment 1.

Bill Cash: I returned to the Chamber especially to hear my right hon. and learned Friend, and I was delighted to hear what he just said. At last, he has seen the light.

Robert Buckland: I have always walked in sunlight; it is others who have perhaps walked through a veil of shadows. We will draw a veil over that. In the spirit of my hon. Friend’s helpful intervention, I have mentioned to him that I thought that clause 5 was unnecessary. It is even more unnecessary now, because the reforms that I referred to in a previous speech on the Bill about rule 39 have now been clarified by practice direction. The threshold that the European Court will apply will be, again, a much higher one. I therefore think that the occasions where we could see it invoked in the Rwanda case would be vanishingly small—in fact, non-existent. It seems to me that any harm that might be judged to have been caused is clearly revocable in the form of a return of those individuals from Rwanda. That, frankly, should have been the position the last time round; the reforms of the European Court make that even clearer.
That makes a powerful general point, which supports the excellent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) about the direction of travel of the Court. I strongly agree with him about the recent climate change decision, which was a wrong turn. We should be very much going back to fundamental human rights, and not talking about socioeconomic rights or trying to make everything into some form of right. Surely it is better to legislate for statutory duties and obligations by public bodies, rather than creating nebulous rights that then become the province of the courts. Herein lies the difficulty that we still encounter in the second batch of amendments—Lords amendments 3B and 3C—which I am still minded to support.
Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court assessed evidence and substituted its own view for that of the decision makers. The noble Lord Howard of Lympne made a powerful speech in the other place about the wisdom or otherwise of going down that road. I agree with a lot of what the noble Lord said. I do not like it when I see courts of higher record in effect relitigating matters of evidence, which is what the Supreme Court did, but that is the situation that we have. That is why the Bill has come forward, and my abiding concern about deeming provisions, which I accept are not unprecedented, is that they should match reality.
That is why I press my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to answer some of the points made in the other place about the progress being made by the Government of Rwanda, not only in legislating for its treaty obligations—it has a monist system, so the treaty is already in force—but in carrying out the obligations it agreed to in the treaty, namely the reform of its appeal system and the use of trained advisers. Those are all measures that would go a huge way to reassuring not just me but any court that might be seized of this matter in the near future that all is proceeding well. The Scottish  Lord Advocate seemed to concede in the other place that there needed to be full treaty implementation before the treaty was ratified. If that is the case, we are arguing over little. That is why I still commend those amendments.
I will now deal with the next questions, which relate to the arguments again trenchantly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I agree with him about the danger of proxy judicial reviews based on the Children Act 1989 and care legislation. We need to take great care about that. Like him, I am not persuaded that there is merit in supporting the Lords amendments on that issue.
I am also encouraged—though still concerned—about the modern-day slavery position. I am encouraged that here alone in the Government’s response to the Lords amendments, they have come up with an amendment in lieu: amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9. I am prepared to support that, bearing in mind the sensitive and important nature of this legislation and the need to avoid us riding a coach and horses through the progress we have made, in terms of this country’s leadership on modern-day slavery. I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and support the amendment in lieu.
My abiding concern remains for a class of people who served our country, who endured great danger in Afghanistan, who still find themselves in danger in a third country—namely Pakistan—and who may well fall foul of an entirely unintended consequence as a result of this legislation, however well intentioned it may be. That is why I am still not persuaded on Lords amendment 10B. The Government have moved on that—we are in an iterative process with the Lords messages—and I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who reminded us of the invaluable role that the deliberative Chamber has in making sure that legislation is tested and up to the level of events.
We should not ignore what was said in the Lords about the evidential situation in Rwanda. That is the reality, and that is why when we pass legislation here, we should do everything we can to avoid legislative fiction. It is not good law. It creates a glass jaw, which can be broken by litigation and by judicial challenge, and we find the courts once again back in a position where I do not think any of us, least of all Conservative constitutionalists, want to see them. Let us legislate with care on this matter, and let us get it right.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I remind the House that due to the pressure on time, the debate on hospices will not take place tonight. I know that there is a lot of interest in that, so we hope that it will be reprogrammed as soon as possible. I also remind everybody that we are trying not to impose a time limit, but Madam Deputy Speaker did encourage seven-minute contributions and no more, so please tailor your speeches accordingly.

Beth Winter: I rise in support of the Lords amendments, which I will vote to retain this evening. I will keep my comments brief. I want to express the need for the House to support Lords amendment 6B. It has already been said that under the Government’s preferred wording for clause 4, a court  still cannot consider the risk of refoulement by Rwanda in contravention of any of its international obligations, even though that was the very risk highlighted by the UK Supreme Court. The amendment would reinstate the protection that the Government wish to remove. It would omit clause 4 and replace it with a clause that seeks to restore the ability of decision makers to consider whether Rwanda is a safe country. It would restore the jurisdiction of domestic courts and tribunals to grant interim relief—a temporary injunction preventing a removal.
During the most recent Lords consideration, the previous version of amendment 6B, which was rejected by this House, was changed. It now adds the stipulation that any interim relief be for
“no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”
The Member who tabled the amendment in the other House, Baroness Chakrabarti, said that it is a “significant concession” and a “genuine legislative olive branch” to the Executive. The Executive should accept that it is an improvement to the Bill and that, rather than neutering the powers of decision makers or the courts, it would allow for better decision making in the asylum process.
It remains my firm view that the Bill is an affront to international law, human rights and the rule of law more widely. It sets a dangerous precedent to other nations who wish to ignore the law, cause harm and demonise and exploit vulnerable people who are in desperate need.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend will be aware that many people all over Europe, particularly in the Council of Europe, have expressed grave concern about this piece of legislation, which outsources our international obligations under all aspects of humanitarian law. If we pass this legislation, many others will follow, and Europe will turn its back on refugee problems that, often, it has helped to create.

Beth Winter: I fully agree that the Bill sets a dangerous precedent. I am pleased to say that the disgracefulness of this legislation is recognised by the Welsh Government, who have withheld legislative consent on similar draconian pieces of legislation and describe this Bill as cruel, inhumane, unworkable and unethical. It sets a horrific precedent for other countries to follow. I am so proud that we are looking to establish Wales as a nation of sanctuary, where we welcome, understand and celebrate the unique contribution that asylum seekers fleeing horrific situations can make to our country of Cymru.
The Bill is an assault on our checks and balances, and our scrutiny of powers. Quite frankly, it is unamendable and should be thrown out wholesale, but given that that is unlikely to happen, in a true attempt to make a bad Bill less bad, I will support amendment 6B and the other amendments before the House this evening.

Tim Farron: I rise to support the amendments from the other place that the Government are seeking to overturn this evening. The mass migration of people—refugees, or those fleeing from the consequences of climate change, seeking a better life for themselves or fleeing from war and persecution—is a huge and serious global problem, and this Bill is a deeply unserious response to it. The Bill has become a byword for Conservative incompetence, waste of public money and, at times, deep and unpleasant cruelty.
The Minister did not take any interventions, as is his entire right, basically because he suggested that he had heard all this before. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said more explicitly that this debate is all about repetition. Too right it is all about repetition: if the Government keep coming back here with ridiculous legislation, we will keep opposing it. The Lords are well within their rights. I passionately believe in the democratisation of the House of Lords; nevertheless, this legislation was not in the Government’s manifesto at the last general election, and the House of Lords has every right to seek to amend and to scrutinise it.
The amendments are hardly deeply radical and shocking. Lords amendment 1B asks that the Government and this legislation have
“due regard for domestic and international law.”
Is that colossally revolutionary? No, it is not. The fact that the Government have a problem with having due regard for international or domestic law is deeply problematic to me, as it should be to most people who would consider themselves to be Conservative.
There are a variety of amendments on safety—amendments 3B, 3C and 6B allude to that and are all important, and I support them all. As has been said by others, it is a nonsense for this Government or any Government to seek to try to make something so just by saying that it is. We have heard many colourful examples of other things we could just will to be the case: I declare Blackburn Rovers back in the premier league, and Chris Sutton and Alan Shearer both back in their 20s. That is not how the world works. If the Government now believe that they have evidence to suggest that Rwanda is a safe place, fair enough; they should present the evidence to the court. That is how a normal constitutional Conservative or democrat of any other kind should behave.
Lords amendment 9 talks about protecting victims and potential victims of modern slavery. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), is rightly proud of the modern slavery legislation, and this Government should retain some pride in that. The amendment would not prevent the Rwanda programme from taking place; it would just prevent those people who are potentially at risk of modern slavery from being part of that deportation. There is no reasonable justification for any reasonable Government to object to amendments 9 and 10B.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I have spoken to people who escaped Afghanistan—people who helped the police and UK armed forces against the Taliban, but were left behind. The only way they could seek safety was via irregular routes and, eventually, by crossing the channel and ending up in the United Kingdom. Amendment 10B would allow the individual I am thinking of, who I met in Barrow a few months ago—he has been well served by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)—the right to be here and not to be removed. This is about Britain doing the right thing and maintaining its obligations to people who put their lives on the line to protect us and our forces.
I said that this as a deeply unserious Bill to deal with a massively serious problem. The least serious thing that the Minister said today was that the Bill constitutes  any form of deterrence. The simple fact is that if the Government get their own way and everything goes absolutely perfectly, one in every 200 asylum seekers here might just get sent to Rwanda. What nonsense! If someone fled the murderous tyrant Isaias Afwerki in Eritrea because they would be conscripted to murder their own people, and crossed the hellhole that is Libya, went across the Mediterranean—for pity’s sake—and the rest of Europe, they would then be faced with crossing a relatively small body of water to get to the United Kingdom and a 0.5% chance of being sent to Rwanda. The idea that that deters anyone—who is the Minister trying to kid? This is a ridiculous waste of money. The money spent on Rwanda so far could have done many things, including employing more than 6,000 caseworkers to help remove those people who are not genuine asylum seekers. That would actually be a deterrent. Instead, we have this nonsense.

Patrick Grady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Farron: I had better not, because I am taking up more time, although I am sure I would have agreed with whatever the hon. Gentleman would have said!
I will simply finish with this. This is a Bill riddled with pretence: the pretence above all that it would be a deterrence to anybody. It is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers’ money and deeply cruel. If Rwanda is a safe place, it will deter no one from coming here and then being sent there. If it is an unsafe place, no decent Government would ever propose to send anyone to it. They cannot have it both ways; they have it neither.

Margaret Greenwood: The Bill casts a shadow over the reputation of this place and over our country as one where the rule of law is valued and respected. It is a matter of grave concern that the Government seem determined to ignore the many legal experts and human rights organisations that have voiced serious and fundamental concerns about the Bill. As Lord McDonald of Salford, a Cross-Bench peer and former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, set out clearly in the press over the weekend, the Bill declares as fact that Rwanda is safe enough to provide shelter for vulnerable people fleeing persecution in their home countries and that not only must British courts accept that Rwanda is safe; they cannot question that assertion even in the light of new evidence that Rwanda may no longer be safe. Surely all of us in this place know how quickly political change can arise in any state. It is nonsensical for the Government to make such a declaration about the safety of Rwanda, but to do so when the impact on vulnerable people has the potential to be so severe and affect their fundamental human rights and their safety is irresponsible and reckless.
Amnesty International UK is among those urging the Government to drop this divisive and dangerous piece of legislation. It has called the Bill an affront to international law, human rights and the rule of law more widely. It warned that, if passed, it will: leave the UK in serious conflict with its international human rights obligations; send a dangerous signal that other nations are free to show similar disdain for their obligations under international law; and harm people who are powerless, vulnerable to demonisation, and readily and cruelly exploited.
The Law Society described the Bill as “flawed” and said that it undermines important British values such as the rule of law and protection for victims, damages the UK’s constitutional balance, and will ultimately prove unworkable, while costing the UK taxpayer a great deal of money. It also highlighted research which suggests that 61% of people think the Government should either accept some amendments to the Rwanda policy or scrap it all together. Liberty described the Bill as
“a constitutionally extraordinary piece of legislation",
adding that “In several places” its
“provisions advance…into some potentially dangerous positions.”
For a Government to get to the point of trying to put through legislation that human rights experts describe as “potentially dangerous” is truly shocking. Why is it that the Government think they can ride roughshod over international law and human rights? The amendments we are considering today would, among other things: require the Government to give due regard to domestic and international law, a most important principle that no one could dispute; allow Ministers, officials and courts to consider whether Rwanda is safe on a case-by-case basis; and remove the risk of unaccompanied children being inadvertently sent to Rwanda. Lords amendment 6B, for example, would allow the court or tribunal to grant
“an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person to the Republic of Rwanda, providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”
Surely any reasonable Government would want to ensure it had the power to do that?
There is still time for the Government to drop this horrendous Bill. I urge them to do so. I also urge all Members across the House who care about the rule of law, our international reputation, and the seriousness with which we should address our international responsibilities, to support the amendments from the other place and vote against the Government’s motions tonight.

Claudia Webbe: The dangers to any nation whose
Government seek to put themselves above the law and the courts are clear. The late Tony Benn put it well when he said that how Governments treat refugees is an indication of how they would treat their own citizens if they thought they could get away with it. The Government’s contempt for the people of the UK is revealed by the assault on the rule of law that the Bill represents. It is also self-evident that a country does not become a safe destination just because a Government declare it so. Human Rights Watch’s latest analysis of Rwanda is clear that
“repression of free speech, arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, and torture”
remain widespread.
The noble Baroness Chakrabarti’s amendment is an attempt to remove one of the most damaging aspects of the Bill, and restore the primacy of law above the whims and ambitions of politicians with regard to asylum applications, and to prevent the Government from simply declaring, blanket-fashion, that Rwanda is safe because they wish it to be and want to deport those fleeing terrible dangers who reach our shores—including, let us  not forget, children. By denying access to a court to challenge the safety of Rwanda, the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s international obligations. It shames our country.
As I have said before, the only real solution to this malignant and discriminatory Bill is to scrap it all together. At the very least, its worst aspects must be mitigated. That includes the need to restore the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in relation to the safety of Rwanda, the power to grant interim injunctions, and at the very least the ability to look at matters on a case-by-case basis. I therefore support Lords amendment 6B and all other amendments from the other place. I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to do the same.

Nigel Evans: Following John McDonnell, with the leave of the House, the Minister will respond.

John Martin McDonnell: I only want to make four brief points, which are based on my experience in my own constituency. At the height of the number of asylum seekers being placed in hotels, I think I had the largest number—I think I still have. I had 2,500 asylum seekers in my constituency. I welcomed that; I welcomed them into our community. Our community in Hayes and Harlington has always risen to support people in need, and I was proud of the local community. There are four points I want to raise from the lessons of dealing with those asylum seekers, touring around the hotels and dealing with casework. In fact, one of the hotels is next to my constituency office.
One point is the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron): these are desperate people—desperate people—and they will not be deterred from coming here, having experienced what they have experienced back in their home country and the way in which they have travelled here. Given the desperate circumstances they are in, in both instances, they will not be deterred by this legislation. They know, as we do, that this is a political stunt rather than anything else.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on that point. It has been my privilege to visit Calais on a number of occasions over the past few years and I have had many conversations with people there. They are desperate; they are poor; they are hungry; they are homeless; they are victims of war and human rights abuses; and they are being treated as though they are enemies of the whole community here. They are not. They are people trying to survive in a very difficult world, and our message seems to be the opposite of all the humanitarian law that has been passed into common parlance over the past 70 years.

John Martin McDonnell: The other lesson I have learnt from meeting a wide range of asylum seekers—and this, in a sense, follows on from what my right hon. Friend has said—relates to the skills they can bring to our country, and how desperate they are to make a contribution. All they want is for their cases to be processed, because the vast majority, even those detained in the two detention centres in my constituency, will win their cases and be received into the community. Their problem is that the processing situation means they cannot travel here through the normal processing arrangements, and when they do get here they are having to wait for up to two years just  to have their cases heard. I do not think that the provisions in the Bill will deter desperate people from coming here in this way.
My second point concerns the amendment relating to the assessment of children. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is not present now, mentioned me because we both represent the London Borough of Hillingdon, which has accepted more unaccompanied children than any other borough because of its proximity to Heathrow. We have had a problem with age assessments, but it is not the problem that the media home in on, which is elderly people being assessed as children; it is the other way round. Children are being forced through a process that can be very demeaning and can have an impact on their mental health, and then are eventually found to be children, as all the statistics demonstrate. It is a brutal system. All that the amendment would do is ensure that assessments are carried out by those who are experienced in the process, namely local authorities.
My third point is connected with my experience of asylum seekers in my constituency. It relates to Afghans who have come here after working alongside our own military personnel in Afghanistan and being let down dramatically by our Government. They have been left in Afghanistan with their families in a desperate plight, often having to go from house to house to hide and, in doing so, recognising that they are putting a family at risk. Some have been advised to get to the nearest border, but, whether it is the border with Iran or the border with Pakistan, they will be sent back. However, if they can break through that system and get here, they are treated almost like criminals, although many have put their lives at risk in supporting this country.
The Minister said today that a review of the scheme is under way, and that that will be taken into account. The review appears to be the solution, and it needs to be undertaken immediately, but while it is going on, may I urge the Government to exempt the people who have served us in Afghanistan from this process? Otherwise, we will be sending to Rwanda people to whom I think we owe some loyalty, and who have experienced traumatic dangers to their lives while serving us.
That brings me to my final point. This morning I heard a Conservative MP on the radio justifying the overriding of domestic law and the courts themselves as if it were some rebalancing between the Executive and the courts. It is not a rebalancing; it is riding roughshod over the system of law that we have in this country, which involves respect for the decisions of the courts. Let me issue a warning to the Government and to Conservative Members: this sets a precedent in placing an awful lot of power in the hands of the Executive. Just think what a Government with a huge majority could do in using that precedent in the future! The unbalancing that is happening at the moment places the ultimate choice between reality and unreality in the Government’s hands, and people will live to regret setting that precedent if we are not very, very careful.
This is a rubbish Bill, and it should be thrown out. I congratulate those in the other place on doing their best to bring some sense to it, but regrettably we will not be able to throw it out. The best we can do is vote for the amendments tonight and send a message back to the  Lords: they should keep fighting, because at least they have some sense of the reality of what people seeking asylum in this country are experiencing.

Michael Tomlinson: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I opened the debate by saying that we were not quite at the point of completing each other’s sentences, but perhaps we are there now. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) hinted that I might be in danger of repeating myself, so I will ensure that I keep my remarks to the point.
I thank all Members for their contributions. As always, I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for the way in which he conducted himself; he reminded us that he is an inveterate optimist, as perhaps those sitting on the Labour Benches have to be. It is fair to say that this has been a good-natured debate, despite some uncharacteristic heckling from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I was gently chided by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for not giving way, but I was pleased that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), not least because he said that his intervention related to Lords amendment 2, which does not appear on the amendment paper—it is not on the list—and is not being debated.
As always, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for her contribution. She will be pleased to know that we disagree again, which will reassure her, but I am sure that her campaign will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) made some serious points, as always. On his point about the two local authorities—this is also relevant to the point made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—I recently met the leader of Hillingdon Council, Councillor Ian Edwards, and we discussed some of the issues and pressures. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his contribution. He tempted me to go down a certain path, which is unnecessary in relation to the ECHR’s recent judgment. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) also tempted me to go down that path, but I will resist the temptation for the time being.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), mentioned a desire to debate the treaty. May I gently suggest to her that we have had ample opportunity to debate the treaty, not least as part of the proceedings for this Bill?
May I respond to the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon? He mentioned his liking for Lords amendments 3B and 3C, and he asked me what progress has been made. I can reassure him that progress has been made and that the Government will only ratify the treaty once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with their obligations under it. He also rightly asked, as did other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, about Lords amendment 10B. I merely repeat the point that the  Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether they are our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down.
I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to join us in the Aye Lobby. It will allow us to get flights off the ground to disrupt the business model of people smugglers, who are exploiting vulnerable people.

Nigel Evans: I am expecting several Divisions.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 315, Noes 250.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 1B.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 3B and 3C.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 246.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 3B and 3C disagreed to.
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords message, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 18 March).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).

Clause 4 - Decisions based on particular individual circumstances

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 6B. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 249.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 6B.

After Clause 4 - Age assessment of unaccompanied children

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 7B. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 249.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 7B.

After Clause 5 - Removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 9 but proposes additional Amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of that Amendment.—(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 246.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 9 but proposes Amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of that Amendment.

After Clause 5 - Exemption for agents, allies and employees of the UK Overseas

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 10B. —(Michael Tomlinson.)

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 253.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 10B disagreed to. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments 1B, 3B and 3C, 6B, 7B and 10B;
That Michael Tomlinson, Scott Mann, Dr Kieran Mullan, James Sunderland, Stephen Kinnock, Colleen Fletcher and Alison Thewliss be members of the Committee;
That Michael Tomlinson be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Gender Non-conforming Young People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Neale Hanvey: The subject of this debate has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks. Michael Shellenberger’s WPATH—World Professional Association for Transgender Health—files report by Mia Hughes was published on 4 March, swiftly followed last week by Dr Hilary Cass’s eponymous report. Both make it clear that gender identity and sex are completely different things, but ideological capture has blurred the lines.
In the early 1990s, I was asked a question by a relative who was volunteering for the Samaritans and speaking to a transvestite male who was struggling with his mental health. Did I, as a gay man, have any advice? I was bemused by the question, because the only advice I could muster was that I had absolutely no insight whatsoever into cross-dressing behaviours, as most transvestites were heterosexual males.
The notion that there is such a thing as an “LGBT person” is ludicrous. Homosexuality is an innate sexual orientation centred on one’s natal sex. I am not a lesbian, bisexual or trans; I am a gay male. Working with others who are same-sex attracted on shared LGB rights has always made sense to me. As I have illustrated, there was a time in the not-too-distant past when heterosexual cross-dressers were confused with what it meant to be a gay male. There is little evidence of any T in the LGB. As they were then, what we now call gender identity and sex remain completely unconnected concepts, and they must not be confused.
I started working in the NHS when I was 19 years old. Since then, I have had a responsibility for child safeguarding that continues to this day. In 2019, I assumed that my professional knowledge and academic experience would have been of value to my then political party, the SNP, as it attempted to grapple with gender recognition reform legislation, but I was wrong. I was an SNP candidate and the chair of Fife Pride when I met my then friend Shirley-Anne Somerville for a coffee to discuss my safeguarding concerns about gender recognition reform. In addition to her Cabinet Secretary role in the Scottish Government, she was also covering the equalities brief. This was someone I had known for years—someone who knew my family.
I covered all the bases, emphasising exemplar cases such as that of local sex offender Lennon Dolatowski, also known as Katie, who had been accused of sex offences in Ms Somerville’s constituency and convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old in the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency, which I was contesting. Despite assuring me throughout the conversation that she fully understood the concerns I raised, Ms Somerville concluded by telling me in no uncertain terms that the policy approach was Nicola’s priority, so I would have to keep my views to myself. In other words, I was being told to be silent on safeguarding. I told her that I would not be able to do that—I could not be silent on the matter of safeguarding children.
Soon after that meeting, the attacks from the gender-radical wings of the SNP, the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems began. Since 2019, and indeed before that, people who have had concerns about LGB rights and the safeguarding of children and young people have been systematically silenced, and not just by the SNP. As recognised by the Minister for Women and Equalities, and again today in the Chamber by the Secretary of State for Health, there has been a deep-rooted capture within our institutions, with senior leaders ignoring the actual law and ideologically captured groups such as Stonewall misrepresenting it.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue, which we touched on in the statement earlier today. Does he agree that we have a duty to protect children of all backgrounds from the lobbying groups that abuse the system to promote a harmful ideology? For example, multinational companies such as Starbucks have supported charities such as Mermaids. It is time that those types of charities, which advocate for those as young as 14, rethink their charitable endeavours. Charities should instead help to protect our children, who must be left alone. Let kids be kids.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I made this point earlier today during in the statement, but the tentacles and influence of Stonewall need to be rooted out of every institution across these islands. It has been my long-held view that the agenda that Stonewall has pushed has seen queer theory-based policies insinuate their way into every public body—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Neale Hanvey: I will go back a step. Stonewall has pushed queer theory-based policies into every public body, including in policing, education, and health, and even on to the Floor of the House of Commons, where straight women tell gay men to get back in their closet. The decision by Stonewall to add the T and incorporate cross-dressing heterosexual males under the wide banner of “trans”, or the more recently added “Q+”, was directly responsible for the elevation of concern among LGB people, women and transsexuals.
The damage done by Stonewall has been immeasurable. LGB people, women and transsexuals have all been subjected to vitriolic attacks from queer-theory activists who hide their vicious and vindictive mob behaviour behind hashtags such as BeKind. I could give a roll call of those who have stood up to that mob, or been dragged through the media and the courts for vexatious purposes, but I would be on my feet all week.
I also want to put on the record that the Labour party leadership needs to come out of hiding on this issue. The shadow Health Secretary’s recent Damascene moment of realisation does not mask the continued silence from the Leader of the Opposition, nor quell the ideological contingent of the parliamentary Labour party. That is not good enough in a general election year. People across these islands need to know that this nightmare is coming to an end before they cast their vote. I am  encouraged by the emergence of sex equality and equity networks—known as SEENs—across the public sector, which challenge this harmful ideological capture. Silence will not cut it.
This indoctrination is causing very real and lasting damage, but the impact on those of us who spoke up has been nothing in comparison to the evil of medical malpractice visited on many vulnerable young people. Many of them were just lesbian, gay or bisexual, or young people dealing with trauma, mental health issues or neurodivergence, or in the care system. As Sex Matters, now a recognised human rights charity, has highlighted:
“A false global consensus around a ‘gender affirming’ approach has emerged because of ideological actors putting their individual belief-systems ahead of the protection of distressed young people, many of whom are lesbian, gay and bisexual.”
The WPATH files shone a light on the lack of evidence to support so-called gender-affirming care, and the ideological bias of documents masquerading as clinical standards. Tragically for children in the UK, WPATH’s standards of care have been extremely influential in shaping NHS protocols since 2011. Young people and many others have been badly failed.
The Cass review must be the final nail in the coffin for a “gender-affirming” model of care for gender-distressed children. Dr Cass builds on the concerns set out in the WPATH files report, which lifted the lid on the culture inside the World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare. The Cass report also criticises WPATH guidelines as lacking in evidence and developmental rigour, and emphasises the vital need for fully informed consent, especially for young people with mental health conditions or other diagnosable co-morbidities.
I would ask the Minister to consider, and discuss with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, an urgent package of investment in child and adolescent mental health services as a starting point. That WPATH’s unscientific standards of care guidelines have repeatedly been lauded by Governments as international best practice is another issue of deep concern, and I ask the Minister if he will commit to looking into the reasons why that was allowed to happen.
Dr Cass dismisses any notion that puberty blockers or hormones have any part in standard treatment for under-18s. The report explicitly states that the medical pathway will not be right for most young people with gender distress:
“the focus on the use of puberty blockers for managing gender-related distress has overshadowed the possibility that other evidence-based treatments may be more effective… clinicians have told us they are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity.”
Dr Cass decisively refutes the idea that suicide prevention is a reason for medicalising gender distress in youth:
“It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion.”
Gender distress has been treated within the NHS in a way that is different from other sorts of distress, to the detriment of vulnerable children.
The Cass review definitively shows that young people with gender distress have been badly let down by those who claim to be protecting them. It substantiates what so many, including Hannah Barnes and Helen Joyce, have argued: that gender-affirming care is not underpinned by a credible or developed evidence base. It leads to  sub-optimal outcomes and the diagnostic overshadowing of complex underlying health and social issues. Dr Cass emphasises that there has been undue ideological influence on healthcare decision making, specifically noting a suppression of evidence and a rush to medicalise vulnerable young people.
This has been facilitated close to home in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, too. Carolyn Brown, a retired depute principal educational psychologist for Fife Council, said in The Sunday Post this weekend:
“The same harmful ideologies identified in the Cass report have been happening across Scotland for years now as senior officials in health, education and social work failed to listen to concerned voices and adopted the ‘Three Wise Monkeys’ attitude while vulnerable children were harmed…
Many children going through puberty do question their gender, their identity and their bodies. That’s just part of growing up. The danger comes when officials affirm those questionings and tell a child they can change their gender. This is ethically and morally irresponsible as well as psychologically harmful and more likely to compound the mental health issues the child already has and reinforce the child’s self-perception that he/she really is trans.”
According to queer theory extremists, these children were born in the wrong body.
Once again, I commend the bravery and strength of those who have de-transitioned and have had the courage to tell their stories—Keira Bell, Ritchie Herron and Sinead Watson and those yet to find their voice. It is a double scandal that we do not know how many other young people have been affected, and whose lives have been irreversibly altered, by medical malpractice. These young people were exceptionalised and subjected to life-altering treatments without due regard for safeguarding, and they were denied the necessary follow up expected in every other sphere of clinical practice.
The cohort of Gender Identity Development Service patients was disproportionately made up of girls. Prior to the publication of the Cass review, Tavistock whistleblower Dr David Bell spoke of young LGB people, especially lesbians, having their sexuality “transed away,” yet it is women’s voices that have been sidelined the most, and none more so than the voice of lesbians.
It will not have escaped the few people left in the Chamber that I am not, and never can be, a lesbian, so I turned to lesbian activists in Scotland to give me their perspective on the impact that Stonewall’s queer theory practices have had on their life. These are their words:
“It has become very difficult to exclude men from lesbian spaces, especially if those spaces, events, or groups are advertised publicly. Males are demanding access to lesbians for dating, and to shame, bully or threaten lesbians who refuse. This has had the effect of driving lesbian culture underground, which means it is very difficult for young or isolated lesbians to make connections…
Young lesbians tell us that they are under a great deal of pressure to accept men in their spaces and as romantic partners. Some of the lesbians in the group have been pressured to identify as trans because of their same-sex attraction… The campaigns around Gender ideology legislation has emboldened homophobes, who make lesbians feel that there is something shameful or bigoted about our sexual orientation. Lesbians who assert their sexual boundaries are described as being obsessed with genitals or as having a ‘fetish’ or ‘kink’.”
This is undeniable and unacceptable homophobia.
In Scotland, the Sandyford clinic is continuing with these discredited hormone treatments, and to date the Scottish Government have persisted with the claim that this amounts to “international best practice”. That is a claim we now know to be manifestly false and worthless.
As highlighted by the LGB Alliance, Dr Cass found that 89% of girls and 81% of boys referred to GIDS were ultimately not trans but were homosexual or bisexual. That indicates an alarming pattern of misdiagnosis and inappropriate, unnecessary and irreversible medical and surgical interventions, and confirms what many have feared: that the NHS GIDS’ adoption of gender affirmation as a model of care has led to their, whether inadvertently or not, practising medical and surgical gay conversion therapy. It is incoherent to put sexual orientation and gender identity under the same conversion therapy umbrella. Parliament should not legislate in this area until sound clinical evidence on the best model of care has been properly developed and validated.
In a letter to First Minister Humza Yousaf raising my concerns about so-called “trans-inclusive conversion therapy”, which we now know is gay conversion therapy, I made the following point:
“Legislating to compel belief in gender ideology runs counter to provisions in the Equality Act 2010 put beyond doubt by the Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others ruling. Forcing an ideology or belief on others...would transform the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscals Service into a pseudo-theocratic enforcement agency and would thus preclude any notion of receiving a fair trial. ”
The Scottish Government, under Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf, have abandoned any pretence they are upholding their public sector equality duty, putting women, children and LGB people at risk. They have been warned repeatedly, but they called such concerns invalid and went ahead anyway. This place must not do the same.
Both First Minister Humza Yousaf and Ms Somerville have defended the introduction of non-statutory schools guidance, enabling non-expert teachers to affirm and enable the so-called “social transitioning” of minors in the absence of parental involvement or consent, but in a landmark legal opinion, human rights barrister Karon Monaghan concludes that schools and councils using such an approach are very likely to be in breach of equality and human rights legislation, and at risk of being sued by excluded parents. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) noted recently, both the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998 are reserved matters, so the same risk of litigation should hold true in Scotland. There is little personal or professional protection for an activist teacher, given that this guidance is non-statutory, so the personal repercussions could be significant if they are pursued directly by excluded parents.
All of those warnings were stated long before the Cass report was published, but the virulent opposition to reason fostered and facilitated by Stonewall’s ideological capture across our public sphere has kept too many silent about the unfolding tragedy. Last week, I wrote to the Clerk of the House setting out in detail the legal and political incongruence and substantiated risk of harm from ropey ideologically-driven legislation. Therefore, I am seeking confirmation from the Minister that any such legislation will be excluded from the upcoming Criminal Justice Bill—I am referring to new clause 37—given the weight of evidence that Dr Cass has published about the dangers of embedding such practice in statute.
When I read the Cass Report and contrast its findings with the meticulous follow-up so carefully developed and provided to the children and young people I cared for during their cancer journey, it makes me furious and ashamed that clinicians could ever behave in such a cavalier manner. The LGB and other vulnerable young people who went to GIDS were subjected to life-altering treatments, only to be cast aside without follow-up. That must never be allowed to happen again—it is unethical and unprofessional, and the damage inflicted is, frustratingly, unknown. The evidence contained in the Cass report and the WPATH files is incontrovertible: in more than 80% of cases, gender-affirming “care” is gay conversion therapy.
Ending the routine prescribing of hormone supressing treatments is very much to be welcomed, but I wish to press the Minister further on the steps the Government will take to ensure that clinicians operating in private clinical practice and online pharmacies adhere to the NHS clinical guidelines issued by NHS England. This is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice and the equality hub to work on in concert.
What further steps will the Government take to ensure that private clinics and online pharmacies are not able to circumvent these clinical guidelines? What sanctions and enforcement measures will be put in place? Will the Minister make it clear that never again will services for children and young people be exceptionalised in the way that they have been, and that Dr Cass’s recommendations will be implemented in full so that healthcare, clinical practice and equalities will be based on evidence, the best interests of every child and young person, and clinical expertise?
In closing, I agree with Dr Cass that LGB and gender non-conforming young people “deserve very much better”. Members of this House no longer have any excuse to look the other way or to hide.

Stuart Andrew: I thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) for securing this important debate. He has raised a number of very serious issues. As he will understand, we are still considering a lot of them, so I may not be able to go into too much detail at this moment, but I will be more than happy to write to him and update him on progress in each area.
I completely agree with him on the need for us always to think about the safeguarding of children and young people, regardless of whether they are LGBT. We need to ensure we uphold our obligations in that regard. We welcome much in the Cass report—it is a comprehensive report. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said to the House earlier, we will be considering and responding to a lot of points made in the report in due course. Much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that we need evidence-based decisions, which will clearly be incredibly important.
As I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box a number of times, this debate sometimes gets toxic, which does not help anybody. There are strong views on all sides of the debate, but for me it is really important that we base the debate on evidence and ensure we are careful in the way that we articulate our arguments. There are people out  there, particularly young people, who will listen to some of those words and feel very affected and pressurised, in whatever direction that may be.
That is why the Government and I are committed to improving the outcomes of young people, especially recognising that LGBT young people can face very specific challenges, which may include bullying at school, an increased risk of mental health issues, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, difficult family environments or, occasionally, even homelessness as a result of their sexuality. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the other equality hub Ministers and I regularly engage with our counterparts across Government Departments on these important issues.
To help achieve the goal of improving outcomes for LGBT people, we have ensured that spending for children and young people’s mental health services has increased. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that important point. We have increased spending from £841 million in 2019-20 to just over £1 billion, but I will ensure that I write to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to raise the points that the hon. Gentleman has made this evening.

Neale Hanvey: The Minister has raised the issue of mental healthcare for young people, including child and adolescent mental health services, which is extremely important to me. I wish to reflect on the statement that was made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and some of the comments that came from the Opposition decrying the long waiting lists for good services. I would just like to make this point: in this area, there is an attrition rate of upwards of 80% of young people. Most of those were on a waiting list for a long time, during which they worked out that they were just lesbian, gay or bisexual, so they did not go through with the surgical medical treatments. Does he not agree that those long waiting lists may have saved some young people from the harm that has been inflicted on others, and that the focus now needs to be on CAMHS funding to make sure that young people get the mental health support they need before they make these irreversible and irrevocable decisions?

Stuart Andrew: That is exactly why the Cass report is so important. It is very carefully considered, and the Government now need to take the time to consider our response. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right: when young people are deciding to come out or are wondering whether they are lesbian or gay, they should have the support that they need to help them to do that. We recognise that some may not have the sort of family support that I was fortunate enough to enjoy. I am blessed with an amazing family who were very supportive of me, but I do recognise that that is not the case for many others. The hon. Gentleman has made some important points and, as I committed to a moment ago, I will ensure that I write to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care with the questions that he raises.
It is important to point out that we work in partnership with the Department for Education as well, because we need to ensure that there is plenty of work going on in the anti-bullying arena. The hon. Gentleman alluded to some of the pressures that the people he has spoken to have felt. That is why we have allocated a further £3 million of funding, divided between five anti-bullying  organisations, to tackle bullying in school. That is on top of the £4 million that has already been spent in this area since 2016, and this includes projects that specifically target anti-LGBT hate-related bullying.
In October 2022, we launched a victim support service for anyone affected by, or at risk of, conversion practices, regardless of sexual orientation, sex or transgender identity, and the helpline is there to provide support and information to anyone over the age of 13. As I have said on many occasions, conversion practices are not a one-way street. Conversion practices—changing somebody from what they believe they are to something else—are, in my view, abhorrent and clearly wrong. As I say, it can go either way, and it is really important that we acknowledge that.
I have also done a lot of work on homelessness. I have seen so many instances of young people who find themselves in these challenging areas ending up homeless. That could be because of that lack of family support that I mentioned or because of mental health issues. That is why last year I and the Minister responsible for homelessness convened a roundtable for local authorities and charitable organisations to ensure that we provide tailored support for LGBT people, which is something that we take incredibly seriously.
The hon. Member also mentioned the issues in Scotland. It would not be responsible for me to answer on the Scottish Government’s behalf, and I do not want to do that. But in terms of what we are doing here, we want to ensure that children are prepared for life in modern Britain, and they need to understand the world in which they are growing up. That is why the statutory guidance states that all pupils should receive teaching on LGBT content during their school years, including in secondary schools.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the Minister for giving way; he is a good sport, as always. Just for clarity on the issues in Scotland, the fundamental question is about the implementation and observation of responsibilities in the Equality Act 2010 and upholding the Human Rights Act, which are both reserved matters. In particular, the public sector equality duty has been an issue across a whole range of public bodies, not least the Scottish Government, who seem to have their own, perhaps Stonewall, view of how that should be interpreted. It is incumbent on all of us to refocus on the fundamental principles contained within that duty.

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the issues in regard to the Equality Act. This can get quite complex and I would be terrified of saying the wrong words at the Dispatch Box, but if he allows me, I will write to him with a few more details on those important points.
I was talking about the processes in the statutory guidance. Our colleagues in the Department for Education are reviewing the statutory guidance and we expect that to go out to public consultation later this year. The review has been informed by an independent expert panel, which brought together inputs from health, curriculum and safeguarding. We hope that that will be a good piece of work that provides updates on the guidance.
As for guidance relating to gender-questioning students, the hon. Member will be aware that the Department for Education published comprehensive draft guidance for  teachers on how best to support pupils questioning their gender in schools. Parents, teachers and school leaders were encouraged to respond to that 12-week consultation, which closed on 12 March. A range of views will be considered, and I look forward to the publication of the consultation response as we continue to work in this sensitive area. It is important that we get that absolutely right and that parents are involved; that is incredibly important.
I feel like I have not given the hon. Member a million answers at this stage, but I hope he will understand that we have just had the Cass report, and it is important that we take the time to consider it. We are going through the review of the guidance that I mentioned.  It is important that those proper processes take place. On the other issues that he has raised, I will write to my colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care, and I will update him when I have had a response.
In the meantime, I thank the hon. Member for raising this important area of work. My view is that we all want to help people to live their lives as they wish, without prejudice or pressure, and there is a responsibility on all of us in this House to do that in a way that is humane and compassionate. I am grateful for the opportunity to outline what we are doing as a Government to support that.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.